[****Correction to my earlier comment awaiting moderation.] Few people disagree some …

Comment on Do these two people live in the same country? by Paul Parker.

[****Correction to my earlier comment awaiting moderation.]

Few people disagree some people do need their income managed – partly or fully, to ensure they maintain a roof over their head, and provide them money each week for food.

People go to welfare about this out of desperation, not desire.

The Commonwealth claims Australians’ identification of themselves with any of Australia’s many racial-sub-cultural groups is their valid measure to determine assistance.

IMHO (“in my honest opinion”) most Australians strongly disagree.

IMHO most feel Australians need protection from government assistance, particularly when racism is used as a tool.

IMHO most Australians do trust our Courts in making these decisions, as their state welfare authorities MUST PROVE THEIR CASE for each intrusive management to be imposed upon the citizens thus denying their civil liberties.

Courts can require privacy of parties to be protected, whilst allowing relevant facts be published. We no longer see enough reporting, so not enough public discussion of issues which are raised in courts. Result is less effective, less responsive legislation.

Paul Parker Also Commented

Do these two people live in the same country?
Our politicians and governments refuse to accept Constitutional restriction on their ability to qualify the rights or responsibilities of Australians using race as their measure.
Commonwealth “NT Intervention” problems continue earlier Commonwealth mass-treatment applied by racial measurement.
Commonwealth obstructs relevant judicial determination processes.
Commonwealth claims it held no Constitutional authority to qualify rights and responsibilities on basis of race, yet it busily did and continues to do so.
Today’s problems result from earlier racial discrimination.
Australian’s Constitution sort to outlaw ALL legislation which qualified Australians rights or responsibilities using racial measurements.
Yet many opposing Commonwealth “NT Intervention” act with concerns for their preferred flavor of racism, not eliminating racism.
The Commonwealth Attorney-General advised Parliament Australia has NO racial tests.
Yet the Commonwealth supports, promotes and practices racism using racial measures.


Do these two people live in the same country?
Two faces of racism, are NOT the only views.
Jenny Macklin maintains Commonwealth claim for 67 years it lacked authority to assist whilst at same time they practiced apartheid.
Richard Downs and others believe they advantaged from Commonwealth apartheid policies.
Hundreds of millions of public money spent perhaps could have achieved more if just given as compensation to all the intended beneficiaries of these programs.
Recipients made wealthy who then wasted it could at least look in their mirrors to see whom to blame.
Past 44 years Commonwealth busily promoted segregationist programs.
Schooling is about attending school, with nothing to do with racial identification.
Took government to make attendance a racial issue, then being government they wasted more public money.
Bilingual education was about teaching people to read, using words they understood, whilst also teaching them to speak English, the language of modern Australia.
People remain – in civilized societies – free to study any languages they like, as long as they have the basics needed to live in the wider Australian community.
Bilingual Education was NOT about expanding languages from our past to incorporate explanations of modern science, medicine, technology or quantum mechanics.
The Commonwealth Attorney-General told Parliament NO racial tests exist in Australia.
Yet Commonwealth racist actions include on almost every Australian a form our Commonwealth’s racial test.
Coldly, deliberately, refusing to all a chance to “decline to answer” questions to do with their racial identification. Any those who do not answer are then deemed to have answered NOT.
Why is our answer “Australian” NOT acceptable?
Such is the approach of our racists.
The Commonwealth promotes, supports and imposes also segregation upon families based on racial testing.
Proposed Commonwealth Constitutional proposal is NOT about helping people to fix past wrongs – have already wasted billions doing this.
Proposed Commonwealth Constitutional proposal is to widen up ability of Commonwealth to claim it has Constitutional authority and power to discriminate between Australians using racial identification as the measure.
Commonwealth denies legal support – when required by the Courts, to those who challenge this purported existing authority.
Australians at Federation, then again in 1967, overwhelmingly voted to extinguish, to eliminate, stop ALL racial discrimination between Australians, not widen opportunities for their Commonwealth to practice same.


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!