The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Doesn’t a ‘national emergency’ require a national response? > Comments

Doesn’t a ‘national emergency’ require a national response? : Comments

By Jennifer Clarke, published 4/7/2007

One puzzling thing about the Commonwealth plan to 'save' Aboriginal children is that it only applies to the Northern Territory.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"One puzzling thing about the Commonwealth plan to “save” Aboriginal children is that it only applies to the Northern Territory."

Isn't that where some of our corporate 'leaders', our senior 'Public Managers' amd the 'people's representatives' (who make decisions behind the closed doors of a Cabinet) plan to dig up more uranium and dump loads of toxic waste ... the stuff they can't sell to the warmongers as 'depleted' uranium?
Posted by Sowat, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 11:55:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes a national emergency requires a national response. Talk to the states. The federal government has the capacity to move into territory affairs because the territory is not a state. It does not have the constitutional capacity to move into the states - and the states have spent the entire length of the present federal government ensuring that they block the federal government at every possible turn. This of course ignores the will of the people at federal level but that is apparently something the premiers are happy to ignore.
Posted by Communicat, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:06:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChristinaMac,
The drug and alcohol problem is not the real root of the problem, the substance abuse is just a symptom.

These people are bored. Everyone screams about them not having fresh food in the communities, well they are traditional people, why don't they go fishing and hunting for fresh food.

I grew up in a poor family and my mother and father grew vegetables and had chickens so we had fresh food. My grandmother had 10 children and her husband young died and left her with 10 kids. She raised them without welfare (no welfare in those days), grew vegetables, went fishing, milked cows etc.

Something needs to change or Indigenous people will be living the same in 20 years from now. Forget about who votes for who, it's not about that, it's about a very serious problem that is finally getting addressed.
Posted by jackson, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:18:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia’s proud history of achievement does not exist without its imperfections. The propriety of the 1967 referendum, which gave the federal Parliament power to legislate with respect to Aboriginal people, is a prime example. Approved by a record affirmative vote of 90.77 per cent, Australians indicated an overwhelming view that the Aboriginal people were entitled to be treated as the equals of other Australians. However, it must be said, that the noble intention of overcoming inequality has been imperfectly applied.

I fear that this Howard/Brough emergency intervention draws heavily on the noble intentions of Australia via a well-worn pathway of imperfect application.
Posted by Neil Hewett, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:40:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A journey of a 1000 steps starts with just one step and the NT is as good a place to start as any because that is where the report came from that triggered the initiative and the Commonwealth can act without more delays. But hey, there is nothing to stop premiers from throwing their hats in the ring and saying, "Me too!".

I cannot understand the lack of humanity of activists and opponents of the initiative (which has support from the States). Why should more children suffer and die while ideological purists seek more podiums for their rants? Anyhow, if it has not been consultation and self-determination that has been happening in these self-managed communities and via government agencies staffed with Aboriginals and others 'sensitive to indigenous culture' what has been going on?

As for trying to make police and the army the boogey men to scare and sensationalise, I would say that the young mothers, children and youth who are presently being terrorised will find them a lot less scary than the criminals (what else are they?) who assault and molest them daily. In any event, who could label the army as scary when the units are local in every sense of the word. For the cynics, here is a primer on Norforce, which I posted to another thread:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/A-very-special-kind-of-force-minds-the-north/2005/03/04/1109700672482.html

I can imagine that had the Commonweath proposed a national program (as is now demanded by some)), there would have been a similar outcry from activists with headlines claiming a 'federal take over', together with demands for some more decades of round robin consultations, claims of racism and the like. There is a lot of benefit in trying smaller first and then carrying forward the learning to other areas.

The first priority for children and mothers is immediate relief and safety, but unfortunately that is the not the priority of some activists. Why should the Australian people allow a few activists to use the wellbeing and safety of women and children as a bargaining chip?
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:58:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With 250,000 cases of child abuse reported and more than 7,000 alcohol related deaths across Australia in 2006, Howards attack on a single minority group is a token response.
Posted by aspro, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 1:47:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy