But as “we” on the bottom rungs of the ladder of influence we’ll know, who controls Government are bean counters! Forget the rest.

Maybe you’ve picked the wrong issue to highlight your point which I’m not going to repeat.

Youth crime is out of control. When communities are mounting vigilante gangs of their own to combat this outrage, Governments need to be quick on their feet. Government inefficiency and prevarication are the leading cause of too little action on the ground by those responsible for law and order issues. The wrong people are being jailed for their self protective reactions.

The voice will not make one iota of difference to the root cause. ( you didn’t raise the issue, but it flows on).

Poverty alleviation methods driven from the top are what’s necessary, and when Government finally moves on the issue, there are the Scotts of life stepping in with their own agenda.

Less of the human rights Mafia Scott!

Disagree. What we need is an irrevocable bill of rights, a human rights ombudsman with the power of a royal commission and a state ICAC with teeth.
Alan B.

Upper Houses are not much use when they they are made up of the same brand of politicians in the Lower House, and odds and sods can be bribed.

Agree with D. D's comments on poverty alleviation!
Alan B.

It is utterly unconstructive & pointless to waffle on about human rights yet totally ignoring human responsibilities !
The notion that indigenous youth & even children are over-represented in crime & incarceration is merely a reflection of them being over-represented in the crimes & indiscipline !
Non-indigenous are just as if not more involved in such activities but they do not get the attention of the sensation seeking tabloid gutter media.
I say responsibilities first, rights second ! Those disagreeing can always put their money to compensating the victims !

Indyvidual

I think ( re article), the issue is with the views expressed by the author viz, restraining Government with an upper house, and offering as example a human rights and treatment of youths by incarceration restraints to support his argument is a flawed view.

I argue in supports of the existing unrestrained Government model for dealing with this issue.

When it finally acts decisively, as it appears now to be attempting to do with youth crime, by reviewing it’s penalty protocols and actually incorporating meaningful disincentives to the crime wave afflicting the nation, this author appears to want restraints to this action by an alternative of more waffling in high places.

Isn’t his argument more one of Authoritarian V Democratic governing models, and doesn’t his example defeat his argument by falling down on the side of human rights of wayward youth as opposed to the right of the citizen to have free and unmolested access to a peaceful society in his normal daily life?

I agree with you though, Aboriginal youths are not alone in the current crime wave, but you would find it hard to argue against the facts as presented in the media, for example Alice Springs, that where there is a higher proportion of Aboriginal settlements, there goes too the obvious increase in representation of Aboriginal youth in crime.

My argument correlates lack of Government action in combating youth crime with the absurd costs of incarcerating youths in youth detention centres. The annual cost per individual is close to a million dollars.

I can understand the reluctance to use detention as a means to an end here. The next step back is for Government intervention to offer alternatives to youth lifestyle choices, it’s far more economical, but obviously far less effective; in fact it appears the soft and economic option emboldens youth towards escalating anti social behaviour with its rewards of a soft touch in the justice system overall, eg soft sentencing for crimes committed.