Re Georgina Posted November 18, 2011 at 9:44 am Suspect …

Comment on From Intervention Lalaland: ‘We demand reparations’ by Paul Parker.

Re Georgina Posted November 18, 2011 at 9:44 am
Suspect Georgina already knows these facts, however…
Contrary to Georgina’s suggestions, families are not losing control of their lives, indeed these leases shall at last provide families greater control of their homes and their lives.
Contrary to Georgina’s suggestions, control of those vast areas of lands owned by Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Land Trust corporations – and their shareholders, is not lost.
Commonwealth advises it shall provide funds for housing when the ALR(NT) Land Trusts corporations agree and sign their conventional terms and conditions for such grants / loans.
The Commonwealth applies similar terms and conditions to almost all offers of grants / loans to other Australians, corporations, NT Government, other State Governments, even to other countries accepting such loans / grants.
Such grants / loans usually include conditions which may require inclusion of titles to areas of land as part, or all, of the securities from the grant / loan recipient.
This involves a very small percentage of the land owned by these ALR(NT) Land Trust corporations.
Land titles used as security are not lost unless the borrowers fail to satisfy the original grant / loan terms.
IF this happens, then, lenders may take legal action to reclaim, and sell, the collateral or securities.
These ALR(NT) Land Trust corporations are welcome to seek monies from anyone to subsidize their constructions.
Georgina may be frustrated to find almost anyone prepared to provide such financial assistance will attach similar terms and conditions for their largess.
Georgina is frustrated perhaps that our governments at last apply their own financial guidelines for funding.
Commonwealth may soon remove obstructions preventing these ALR(NT) Land Trust landlords from being held as accountable for disgraceful living conditions in their estates as other landlords.
All these ALR(NT) Land Trust corporations should first be spending their own monies to construct and maintain their own buildings to acceptable standards upon their own lands.
Now that could be responsible ownership!

Paul Parker Also Commented

From Intervention Lalaland: ‘We demand reparations’
Re: Georgina (November 19, 2011 at 8:35 pm)
Georgina and the self-titled “concerned Australians” apparently support racism as they call for fellow Australians to receive different treatment using race as a measure.
School attendance became compulsory, then amended to again exclude certain races.
Thus racism, legislation, lack of leadership, meant NT Education, with the Department of Children and Families, failed to seek appropriate orders in courts, to protect families, particularly children, at risk, including for non-attendance at school.
Central to these failings, with results in communities upon families and individuals, has been the Commonwealth’s ongoing racist, apartheid, approach to public policy – purportedly to extinguish racism and apartheid.
Public policy in Australia, most of the world, supported by the United Nations, is that all children must be educated so as not to deny them their chance to achieve their potential in life.
Survey results, concerning compulsory attendance do show some support for cuts to welfare payments of families with children not attending school.
Objections seem more result of changes to racist flavors.
Legislation exists for courts to deal with children not attending school, non-attendance regarded as an act of negligence.
Puzzled why families represented as major causes of non-attendance, when large percentage of non-attendance is amongst teens who may ignore guidance to attend from families and others. Cutting money to house and feed them may influence them – when old enough and start receiving money directly from Centrelink.
Should families kick them out from home earlier?
Courts act within legislation to determine facts, then seek to apply most appropriate remedial actions.
Yet Commonwealth and NTG appear reluctant for such matters to be considered in court.
Courts determine facts, then usually allow them to be published (without juvenile respondent identification) to educate entire community about the law, so perhaps Commonwealth and NTG seek to hide other failings.


From Intervention Lalaland: ‘We demand reparations’
Has the Committee raised their complaints with their respective Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Land Trust corporate landlords? The Committee needs take complaints about their housing to their respective ALR(NT) Land Trust corporate landlords.
Is the Committee raising these issues publicly because their corporate landlords refuse to listen to them ?
If these ALR(NT) Land Trust corporate entities no longer own the land, they are no longer their landlords.
Has the Commonwealth stripped these ALR(NT) Land Trust corporate landlords of their titles to ownership of these lands ?
In My Honest Opinion (IMHO) not yet.
Have these ALR(NT) Land Trust corporate landlords issued leases – with permission to sublet, to the housing on these lands being complained of?
IMHO not yet.
I’m surprised Justice Nicholson fails to clarify these basic facts, of some relevance to the legal issues.
Or are legal issues like facts and responsibility to be avoided, in preference to playing the emotional game so popular with racists ?
Until these ALR(NT) Land Trust corporate landlords issue valid leases permitting others to sub-let they remain the responsible landlords.
Certainly these ALR(NT) Land Trust corporate landlords, and their Land Council agents, need be held accountable for the dismal living conditions in these communities.
IMHO Commonwealth obstructionism, Commonwealth negligence, or outright Commonwealth racism, contributes significantly to these matters, perhaps culpability, responsibility, for these landlords NOT being held accountable for these dismal housing conditions, failed community developments, failures to improve living conditions, with resultant denial of opportunity to achieve to so many.
IMHO the Commonwealth needs bluntly tell these landlords to issue all their tenants with valid leases or lose their titles to the land.
This may legally require the Commonwealth to pay “just compensation”.
Based upon unimproved capital value, the cost likely to remain less than to date spent by the Commonwealth constructing and repairing these houses – directly or through the NT government.
What are the unimproved capital values for a standard housing block in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Papunya, Kintore and Yuendumu and others?
What happens is really up to the ALR(NT) corporate Land Trusts.
The ALR(NT) corporate Land Trusts may continue to refuse to issue valid leases, to all their tenants, including those residing in houses constructed with public funds.
Or they can risk losing the land.
Consider IF these landlords were just another ASX listed corporation as the landlord and behaving like this, what would have happened to them?
Why should ALR(NT) corporations be treated any different?


Recent Comments by Paul Parker

The APY saga: Evidence suggests dysfunction
These consequences flow from ongoing governments’ racist division achieved with local support for apartheid approaches to policy.
Government’s response thus remains “government only does this to help you …”
Clearly this not true, or else far more improvements should be visible.
Consider more how the local supporters for these racist apartheid approaches provide so little improvement, leaving the APY little room to argue and negotiate.
The best path to achieving equality of opportunity, and better measurable results, is for APY to join the rest of Australia and dump these out-of-date apartheid feudal approaches.

.


Partition off Darwin to fix NT’s urban bias: Professor
The Commonwealth may be agreeable to divide the NT into even more separately organized kingdoms as suggested by Professor Gerritsen.
His proposal to partition Darwin off from the rest of the Northern Territory suits longer term partitioning of the NT into various separate fiefdoms, per Commonwealth’s Aboriginal Land Rights (NT).
I doubt the NT achieving better fiscal equity is a priority to those involved.
It appears more like ownership and control without accountability and responsibility.
The Commonwealth is still working to partition NT into separate, self-governing, legal kingdoms, all done in accordance with various Commonwealth racist apartheid legislation guidelines.
Elsewhere Amos Aikman recently wrote of lease difficulties to do with the case before Justice Stephen Southwood involving the Commonwealth’s ALR(NT) racially segregated and partitioned community at Santa Theresa, concerning issues around housing, rentals, repairs and leases – or lack of them, affecting tenants living there.
This appears a repeat of Amoonguna housing issues covered earlier by the Alice Springs News, neither appear resolved.
[Q: Did Commonwealth quietly provided required funds to repair the private corporate land-owner’s houses?]
I admit wondering why they are suing the NT government, when the pot of gold for these is in Canberra, while in this case NT appears to act on behalf of, on instructions from, the Commonwealth, within limitations of Commonwealth’s racial segregationist policies set out in the ALR(NT), or flowing from same, makes this case more complicated than most property / tenancy cases.


Surprising conservative on council: Jacinta Price
Racial tags remain racist tools.
Racists aim to shift debates, use racial tags to move focus so racial membership becomes the issue.
The 1967 Referendum campaign and the overwhelming result was to stop, to eliminate, government use of racial tags as legislative filters to eliminate, or to qualify, our shared legal rights and legal responsibilities as Australians.
Almost every use of racial tags supports racists’ cause.


Street kids: No Protective Custody but Care Orders
CORRECTION Re: Paul Parker Posted August 15, 2017 at 12:40 pm

My error, it should read:

I certainly hope “departmental spokesperson” and others put more effort into funding and the providing of single bedroom units affordable on Centrelink to house those 16 to 18 (and older).

.


CAAMA, Imparja reluctant bedfellows
Re: Ralph Posted August 9, 2017 at 4:51 pm
Why do Aboriginal / Indigenous Corporate bodies require greater standards of accountability than other corporate entities ?
IMHO the Commonwealths Aboriginal / Indigenous entities exist to protect positions, reputations, and control, of Ministers and governments not purported beneficiaries.
Racism includes application of different standards to businesses where directors, shareholders, or beneficiaries, are qualified by racial identification.
Government financial assistance, even contracting, benefits many businesses under the Corporations Act.
While the majority of businesses in Australia are small, they make up around 97% of all businesses, with around 60% businesses failing in first three years.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics report into corporate insolvencies for 2011-2012 found 44% of businesses suffered poor strategic management, 40% inadequate cash flow or high cash use, and 33% suffered from trading losses.
Directors and employees, from smallest to largest corporations, subject to judicial accountability for corporate negligence.
Many successful in business advise trying to understand why they were failing, or they failed, is what enabled them to succeed later.
The need is to encourage those in business to seek and obtain advice from others sooner without racist measuring.


Be Sociable, Share!