Surprised! I do agree with you but to a certain …

Comment on First Nations want a ‘Voice’ enshrined in the constitution by Evelyne Roullet.

Surprised! I do agree with you but to a certain point: total equality does not exist, as we all have different needs; but ALL “to have the same rights” does.
I give one example that really touch me and upset me: My husband has a very good army friend, together they fought for this country in Borneo, in Malaysia and in Vietnam.
This friend with his children and grand children regularly visit us, we have BBQ few drinks and fun. Alas, he cannot reciprocate, because he is an Aborigine who live in a CAMP. Equality? Same rights?
Let’s start by giving the Aborigine a voice then we can have a look to needs and distribution of money.
Money from taxpayers should be distributed accordingly to needs not by ethnicity or past history.

Evelyne Roullet Also Commented

First Nations want a ‘Voice’ enshrined in the constitution
It is time and hopefully quickly.
We are now the only Commonwealth nation that does not have a treaty with its Indigenous peoples. Rather than building our country on the idea of a partnership with Aboriginal people, our laws have sought to exclude and discriminate against them.
The idea of a treaty goes back many years. The failure to enter into a treaty was lamented in the early days of the Australian colonies. For example, the governor of Van Diemen’s Land, George Arthur, presided over a period of great conflict known as the Black War and in 1832 remarked that it was “a fatal error . . . that a treaty was not entered into” with the Aboriginal people of that island.
Positive change in Australia depends on Aboriginal people having more control over their lives. Improvements in education, employment and quality of life must be achieved by policies and programs owned and developed by the people affected.
Success cannot be imposed from Canberra. The hard work must be done by Aboriginal people; but decisions have often been imposed on Aboriginal people by parliaments and governments lacking even a single Indigenous member.
In the words of Prime Minister Keating at Redfern 10/12/1992:
“We have to acknowledge that pre-1788, this land was as Aboriginal then as it is Australian now and until we have acknowledged that, we will be an incomplete nation and a torn people.”….

“Isn’t it reasonable to say that if we can build a prosperous and remarkably harmonious multicultural society in Australia, surely we can find just solutions to the problems which beset the first Australians – the people to whom the most injustice has been done.”

Recent Comments by Evelyne Roullet

What REALLY goes on in our streets: Youth worker
@ Paul Parker: “Clearly the NT has become an apartheid state, where the rights, responsibility and accountability of residents appears first determined by racial tags”.
Apartheid refers to a political system where people are clearly divided based on race, gender, class or other such factors.
The NT became an apartheid State when the Federal government scrapped the Racial Discrimination Act so that they could implement three specific rules: The right to send the army into Aboriginal communities, the establishment of non-Aboriginal managers within Aboriginal communities, and the supervision of people’s social security payments!
If they done this to another ethnic group there would have been a revolution.
But the topic is out of this discussion!

Lasseters private enterprise beacon in stagnant town
Yes, Pratty Bruce, I remember the day when, a few days after the opening, the well dressed boyfriend of my daughter was refused entry because his trouser had a stud!

What REALLY goes on in our streets: Youth worker
The age of criminal responsibility acts as the gateway to the criminal justice system – under a certain age you are kept out.
Australian criminal jurisdictions have a modern approach, with two age levels of criminal responsibility: A lower one under which a child is always presumed too young to ever be capable of guilt and can, therefore, never be dealt with in criminal proceedings (currently under the age of 10); and a higher one where the presumption that a child is incapable of crime (termed the presumption of doli incapax) is conditional.
Children in the higher age group, between 10 and 14 years old, can be convicted of criminal offences only if the prosecution can refute the presumption of doli incapax.
This can be done by proving the child understood that what he or she had done was wrong according to the ordinary standards of reasonable adults.
We need to remind teenagers of a sobering reality: “You are no longer boys and girls, you are men and women. You are an adult when your body says so, but you don’t get the perks and privileges that adults enjoy until you earn them.”
The last point goes for any age.
Teenagers are at an age of life when their focus should be on taking on the responsibilities of adulthood.
Alas, we live in a society that clings tightly to extended adolescence, the banalities of youth culture, and the choice of older people to refuse to act their age (grandparents who do not want to be called Nana and Poppy “60 is the new 40” or whatever).
This said I believe that most children aren’t born innately good or evil; rather, they learn what is acceptable behaviour (or not) from the adults around them.
We should introduce the concept of parental responsibility into our criminal code.
Imposing legal and financial responsibility for kids’ criminality on parents will force grown-ups to become better parents.
And for those mums and dads who lack the financial capacity to meet their delinquent children’s obligations? Start docking their welfare payments.
Nothing focuses a lazy parent’s mind like the prospect of losing taxpayer funding for their lifestyle.
Why should those of us who work for a living subsidise adults who fail to raise their own kids properly?

Turn from endless consulting to making it happen
@ EADE: “But at the end of the day there is always risk, and it is up to the government to minimise that risk and look after the community”.
Correct, but in this case the “minimising” is not good enough. Living is a risk that we all face from the day we are born, but some risks like this one are not worth taking.
When we have no clean water supply, all the “sorry” in the world will not fix it.

Mayor Ryan short on answers on top issues
@ John Bell: Jimmy has more than long hair in common with great men: all had being ridiculed by their peers.
Jesus was ridiculed by His Brothers, Moses was rejected By His Brethren …
Newton was labelled heretic. Newton’s religious views developed as a result of participation in an investigative discourse with Nature (the nature of the world).
Trying to convince you that Albert Einstein was rejected in any way during his lifetime let alone a moron is a hard sell, considering that he was one of the most famous men on the planet at the time.
Why not Jimmy?
@ Fred and John
“Research done by Ramon Mora-Ripoll, medical scientific director at Organizacién Mundial de la Risa, Barcelona Spain, has shown that humor and laughter is related to health, and can release physical and emotional tension, improve immune functioning, stimulate circulation, elevate mood, enhance cognitive functioning and, not surprisingly, increase friendliness.”
So if we communicate with humour, we develop friendship.

Be Sociable, Share!