whistler, "essentially Aborigines recognise a women's jurisdiction"

Having seen how many women, youth and children are treated in many communities I am calling BS on that one. I suspect it is the same push who take advantage of them who have been active over the years defrauding the communities of their money, vandalising shops, projects and vehicles and rolling logs to stall progress. Who else gains from trashed houses and in this case no houses?

A house with a solid two metre high chainwire fence locked from dusk to dawn is not something drunken longrassers want, but that is what is needed to give women and families their own safe 'jurisdiction'.

Loudmouth, all issues impact on both women and men in some form or another but europeans only recognise a men's jurisdiction in which to consider any issue, in men's legislatures, courts and corporate governance.
Consider that a simple majority of the federal parliament can rescind the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 with the effect of removing all women members and prohibiting all women a vote.
The same cannot be said of men.
Australia has men's legislatures only to which women are admitted under male supervision, the original intent of the Westminster parliament which enacted the Constitution.
With only men's legislatures enacting law, only a men's jurisdiction in the courts interprets law.
Corporate governance follows suit under legislative governance.

Aboriginal tradition recognises both men's AND women's law making assemblies, dispute resolution procedures and economic management, independent and interactive.
Sidelining the entire middle management of Aboriginal communities has wasted billions of dollars and still fails to achieve the cooperation of communities required to achieve stated goals.
Aboriginal tradition is ancient and won't go away, european tradition is in transition.
An equal rights republic with law enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees reconciles european governance effective and productive of all contact with Aborigines for both Aborigines and europeans.
A majority of Australians in a majority of States would have overwhelmingly supported a referendum on a republic recognising equal rights between women and men held this weekend.
The men who established Australia's legislatures never intended they would be anything other than men's legislatures admitting women under supervision.
Women would have to wait until they gained sufficient experience before they could have legislatures of their own in tandem.
Sufficient is the present.

And with respect i really have to say, if you're given custodianship of the most ancient culture on earth and you're approach is to confine its practitioners in recycled shipping containers with pit toilets you really need to take a good hard look at yourself, at the standards you set for yourself, the standards you project on others.
Australians are much more special than that.

Cornflower, the standard which is the outcome of the imposition of european governance is not the standard of Aboriginal tradition.

Whislter,

'... in tandem ... ' So your mens' and women's legislatures would deliberate about precisely the same issues, but 'in tandem' ? (And then what ? And what if the two 'houses' disagreed on an issue ? Who would then deliberate to decide the issue ?) Then why not one single legislature, men and women deliberating together ? Something like we have now, but wit hmore female representation ?

I'm certainly not suggesting that anybody should be 'confined' to shipping containers, etc., but if I were to set myself up on a block of land that I had bought, I would not expect the government to house me, but I would take it for granted that I would have to either build or buy my own accommodation, and one option (given the constraints on my budget) would be a modified shipping container or two - and yes, either a pit toilet or an organic-chemical toilet. I wouldn't expect the government to do it all for me, not if I was on my own land. I certainly wouldn't expect the government to build me a million-dollar house with all the trimmings.

whistler

OK let's have it. What about looking at the designs and telling everyone precisely how they are of a lower standard or structurally inferior to any of the houses you might come across in housing estates.

At the same time you might also show how any house available in Australia could match them for value for money, flexibility, robustness and overall suitability for transporting and erection in remote areas.

It is recycling but so what that is good. The steel doesn't age and it doesn't appeal to termites either.

Again, do communities want houses or not and will that be this year or not? Because I cannot think of any solution that goes anywhere near this idea for supplying good, functional and attractive homes that the communities themselves could modify to suit any needs and special purposes they might have.

I care enough to put forward constructive ideas and I remain very concerned about the mothers, families, youth and children. What is your solution, apart from fantasies about a 'women's legislature'?

Loudmouth, it is wrong to argue that after centuries of men discriminating against women, men can now claim they are the same as women, men and women are different.

An equal rights republic rebadges the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women and the House of Representatives a men's legislature with members elected by men, each with exactly the same powers to initiate, review, amend, accept or reject legislation enacted with passage through both.
A cabinet of equal numbers of women, appointed by a majority of the women's legislature, and men, appointed by a majority of the men's legislature, reconciles the business of the parliament and provides the republic with leadership, while sovereignty resides with a cabinet nominated council of governors-general comprised of equal numbers of distinguished senior women and men.
The States and Territories follow suit, their interests preserved through women's and men's lines of communication, and the courts recognise women's and men's jurisdictions.
Change is simple, a referendum gives effect, an equitable outcome certain.

Would you expect anything else from a government which took away your law and its protections over housing?
However relevant your solution and Cornflower's may seem to you [and Cornflower], they are of little very relevance to Aboriginal tradition. So the more you promote your solution[s] the more you sideline tradition.
This is not what either of you intend, which is why the equal rights republic comes first after which the housing crisis can be resolved at which time your contributions will no doubt be celebrated as the wisdom of Solomon.