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

Gallery: Gunner sticks with ANZAC Oval
Chief Minister Michael Gunner and his government appear to be adopting approach of Dr Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
— Dr Joseph Goebbels: On the “Big Lie”


Three men escape from gaol
Low level security for the Cottages is appropriate, indeed important, part of educating and assessing residents.
Video is needed to monitor movements outside theCottages along with various options to respond, even some low level internal monitoring.
While many informally learn to live comfortably in a home, accepting balance of rules and rewards, it is something many inmates failed to learn.
IMHO we need to extend village accommodation approach, with more self-contained single person units, with structured releases for various appropriate daily activities.
Each stage of release onto parole, to full release, needs to encourage living in units, from the Cottage to town or community. Each needs support and follow up.
Each benefit felt contributes to learning and moderation.


‘Government’s secret decision making’
So decisions are made behind closed doors.
So they refuse to explain their decisions.
Many believe such is evidence of corruption.
Q.1: Is each representative making these decisions individually corrupt?
Q.2: Is the Parliament corrupt when letting them refuse to explain their individual decisions?
Q.3: Is it party policy, party membership, which demands such corruption ?
Elected Parliamentarians are granted considerable authority – with accountability, to make decisions.
Such authority requires clear explanations for each of their decisions.
It is the duty for all Members to ensure each answers the questions.


Alice town camps need not be places of misery
The tern “traditional owner” is past is past use-by-date, much like the early colonial government’s various introduced systems of “protective” reserve areas.
All are of little benefit in terms of use and occupancy, effectively without rights and responsibility, other than through a confusing accountability maze to where management hides.
In 1860 South Australia legislated for a first Chief Protector appointed to watch over interests of Aboriginal people.
In December 1907, soon after Federation, Prime Minister Alfred Deakin and South Australian Premier Tom Price executed a formal agreement to transfer the Northern Territory to South Australia.
The South Australian Parliament passed the Northern Territory Surrender Act 1908.
The Commonwealth in 1910 re-introduced its Northern Territory Acceptance Bill, it eventually passed, enabling the Commonwealth to assume responsibility and authority from January 1, 1911.
All relevant South Australian legislation and regulation remained in force within the Commonwealth Northern Territory until it was changed by the Commonwealth.
The South Australian “protective” rules were accepted, maintained, enforced by the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth Aboriginals Ordinance 1911 and successive Commonwealth legislation made the Chief Protector the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child under the provisions of this Ordinance.
The Chief Protector was replaced by the Director of Native Affairs with passing of the Aboriginals Ordinance 1939.
We are still claiming legal guardianship over all Aboriginal children, still usurping authority of parents, still subjecting all to near-total control over their lives, still maintaining their denial of basic legal rights as Australians.
The Commonwealth claims it held NO legal authority to protect Australians of Aboriginal descent.
Yet at the same time the Commonwealth claims legal authority to regulate, to deny equality of rights, to manage apartheid upon fellow Australians, using the racist term Aborigine.
Racism in Australia, since Federation, is mostly product of Commonwealth racist actions and in-actions.
Racism within Australia since Federation is contrary to specific intent of Australians voting for their Constitution.
Their opposition to racism, apartheid, upon fellow Australians, was even more clearly re-expressed in 1967.
Today the Commonwealth still uses subterfuge, confusion, to qualify, to deny, to Australians their equality of rights, responsibility, accountability, and thus equality of opportunities for better lives.
The Commonwealth still segregates, still separates, Australian families using racial identification as its measure.


Alice town camps need not be places of misery
The 1960s campaigns were to achieve equality of rights, equality of responsibilities, and equality of opportunities.
It is clear obstructive forces still delay this.
There was, there is, and shall continue to be recognition, consideration, to descendants of those who lived here before western society arrived.
When Captain Arthur Phillip established government his instructions were to recognize, to support, to defend, ongoing use and occupation by “native” populations of their respective lands, with their rights to continue living traditional lifestyles, with exception where those “native” customs and practices clashed with laws of the Crown.
This egalitarian approach traces back to 1066 AD when William Duke of Normandy conquered England. Later came perhaps more significant advances upon the customs and laws in the history of the UK.
The Mabo and other judgments by the High Court reflect ongoing concerns for egalitarianism.
Prior to establishment of the Commonwealth various Australian state legislatures enacted requirements for youths, eventually all youths, to be educated.
Government(s) regularly fail to ensure all Australian youths obtain education at least to where each can learn further themselves. The governments blame the families.
There remain far too many believing it is not appropriate to require Australians with “Indigenous” ancestry to be educated to read, write and count, to enable them to achieve their potentials within our wider Australian community. They are forces of darkness.
Is not helpful to suggest individuals identified by racial tags can achieve their potential, can rehabilitate or develop themselves, develop their living culture upon their own lands, on their own terms, without their achieving wider understanding of our shared wider Australian society, our entire world and universe around us.
Bilingual education was not to promote mono-lingual education.
Bilingual education was to ensure each student commences their learning to read, write and count using language they understand.
Bilingual education at same time was to teach each student to speak, read, write, confidently express their views with Australia’s primary English language, for that a necessity for individuals to truly advance.
Some still believe “Indigenous” are zoo exhibits, limiting their opportunities, obstructing their becoming part of our wider egalitarian Australian community.
Segregation and obstruction deny opportunities, showing the fallacy of claims residents are in charge of planning, building these towns, able to build better lives.
Corporate Land Trusts using Commonwealth’s ongoing apartheid maintain these communities, the residents, not as landowners making using of their own resources, rather as addicted suckers from the public monies purse.


Be Sociable, Share!