Re: Georgina (November 19, 2011 at 8:35 pm) Georgina and …

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

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.

Paul Parker Also Commented

From Intervention Lalaland: ‘We demand reparations’
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!


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

Second Barkly child tragedy highlights need for urgent action
Re Phil, Posted April 6, 2018 at 12:44 pm: I doubt if everyone critical of your stand re alcohol, including myself, thinks prohibition is impractical and considers prohibition would fail.
Contributions from alcohol to other offenses long recognised, while previous excuses of intoxication with alcohol mostly now fail.
Many are aware of FASD. It is essential ALL children and all persons facing custodial orders be tested for disability indicators. There must be suitable support programs.
The NT statistical results need to be regularly published.


Part of the town speaks, but will pollies listen?
The February 2018 count for takeaway alcohol point of sale checks was 58,058 of which 195 resulted in No Sale.
The NT had 399,945 BDR scans at takeaway outlets in February with 684 (0.2%) refusals due to the person being on the BDR.
To catch that 0.2%, IMHO, is a waste of police resources.
The call by Donna Ah Chee and Dr John Boffa from Congress for POSIs to stay is faulty.
Licensees must do their own checking. If they serve a banned person, or an intoxicated person, they risk the loss of their license.
Congress or NT Health can clarify whether intoxicated persons, or their victims, arrive in the hospital emergency department from a business serving alcohol or elsewhere.
It is likely most of them came from elsewhere.
If they regularly arrived from a particular licensed premises it’s license should be canceled.
If they regularly arrive from a particular address then the premises needs become a banned location for alcohol consumption.
The NT legislation enables those concerned about anti-social drinking in various locations, including private places like homes, where regular alcohol related incidents occur, they can apply for consumption of alcohol to be banned at such locations.
Ban consumption of alcohol short term at locations where alcohol induced violence occurs. Longer term bans should best determined by a court.


Art gallery: Door slammed on Desert Park
Lauren Moss, as Minister for Tourism and Culture, may have accepted the portfolio for Propoganda, sharing perhaps earlier ministers’ principles: “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”.


Jacinta Price: talking about Aboriginal people but not for them?
When I was younger our struggle was to end exclusions, denials of equality, sort was equality in rights, responsibility and thus opportunity.
Easter reminds us many can be Judas, betraying our principles for 30 pieces of silver …


Second Barkly child tragedy highlights need for urgent action
Community problems will continue until the Commonwealth provided personal and corporate exemptions from responsibilities ends.
Commonwealth racist support for apartheid is not a valid reason for ongoing exemption from responsibilities as land-owners or lease-holders.
Expectations are that governments must provide public monies to provide and maintain improvements in these privately owned apartheid fiefdom lands. This significantly contributes to current problems.
When these tenants’ and landlords’ responsibilities and accountability become simpler then most issues will be resolved.


Be Sociable, Share!