All responsible media identify and protect their sources. Unfortunately the use …

Comment on Bush jobs for dole: 26 weeks, 25 hours per week by Paul Parker.

All responsible media identify and protect their sources.
Unfortunately the use of an alias is essential to avoid the vindictive abuse of power.
Such abuse of power requires and deserves coverage.
Royal Commissions frequently require anonymity to obtain the evidence and the public discussion often with such anonymity to obtain political, administrative,legislative and public attention to fix problems.
Most such problems clearly tolerated at management and legislative levels until sufficient public attention, even outrage demanding improvements are clear.
The government funded “Indigenous” industry more about milking problems than resolving them.

Paul Parker Also Commented

Bush jobs for dole: 26 weeks, 25 hours per week
To resolve lack of employment in communities reasonable leases for homes and businesses must be provided.
Such leases are effectively NOT provided.
While “Traditional Owners” as shareholders of Land Trusts continue refusals to issue reasonable leases, little will change.
Commonwealth needs amend the Aboriginal Landrights Act (NT) to require conventional leases being issued.
Refusal to require leases maintains apartheid.
Until then Land Trusts and “Traditional Owner” shareholders need be fully accountable and responsible to provide ALL services within their private property communities.
Commonwealth needs to start suing the Land Trusts for failure to maintain basic standards in housing.
Commonwealth needs cease public funding, except where providing same assistance to other private landowners.
Commonwealth appointed Land Councils to be the real estate agents for the Land Trusts.
Corporate Land Trusts need to act with advice from their statutory agent Land Councils.
Both Land Trusts and Land Council’s need be held accountable for consequences arising from their decisions.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s4.html
Commonwealth legislation: ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) ACT 1976 – SECT 4
Land Trusts
– – – Extract – Start – – –
Legal status of Land Trust
(3) A Land Trust:
(a) is a body corporate, with perpetual succession;
(b) shall have a common seal;
(c) subject to this Part, may acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property; and
(d) may sue and be sued in its corporate name.
– – – Extract – End – – –
Commonwealth needs to sue Land Trusts and Land Councils where they deny rights their tenants otherwise hold as Australians.
Commonwealth needs cease its ongoing refusal of legal aid which prevents Land Trusts and Land Councils being sued on these issues.
Instead the Commonwealth plots another constitutional amendment to defend and support their claimed right to qualify our rights and responsibilities as Australians by racial tagging.


Bush jobs for dole: 26 weeks, 25 hours per week
The corporate Land Trusts own their land, thus also own buildings and houses constructed upon their land. Commonwealth’s Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) legislation has enabled them to escape accountability.
As NOT so responsible land-owners ALR(NT) corporate land-lords fail to maintain their housing to the same standards required from other land-owners and landlord agents around the nation including Alice Springs.
Other land-owners, agents, also risk loss of income, loss of their land, their homes, their businesses, even loss of liberty, in available penalties for various neglects.
The ALR(NT) land-lords risk nothing. They, too, need to risk loss to ensure their houses and buildings are properly maintained.
Not so responsible ALR(NT) corporate landlords’ ongoing refusals to provide conventional tenancy leases remains a tactic to avoid accepting responsibility to maintain their houses and buildings.
Commonwealth Intervention attempted to enforce leases being issued, Commonwealth failed to amend the ALR(NT) to require conventional tenancy leases be issued.
Commonwealth government maintains its neglect of these tenants’ rights thus shares responsibility.
Conventional tenancy leases deny landlords the right to segregate families on racial and other grounds, including the ALR(NT) Land Trusts practicing apartheid.
To most it is clear reasonable tenancy leases, with risk of loss, enable and produce more businesses, more employment opportunities, with generally better standards of housing, tenants and communities.


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!