Is this the reason why so many homes were flooded in Brisbane, and what about other areas.

Will governments cover this up. I feel very sorry for those people affected by the floods and it seems some authorities have much to answer for.

Graft and corruption may also be involved.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/alarming-report-on-brisbane-river-risks-covered-up/story-fn7ik8u2-1225987231243

To the majority of people, individual, National Service means "joining the Army".

You seem to think its primary function is community service.

"Bring back National Service" has forever been the catchcry of old farts who disapprove of yoof in general, their manners in particular, and their music... you call that noise, music?

Never, ever, is it accompanied by any rational thought as to how much it will cost, financially and socially, or to who qualifies and who does not qualify, among many other simple questions.

You have simply conformed - quite beautifully, it has to be said - to the stereotype.

Is it just unemployed youth that you wish to dragoon? Or everyone, as they do in Israel? Will it be State-by-State, or a Commonwealth initiative? Would - should? - the same effect be achieved by a commitment by Local Councils to a structured form of community service?

Because sentencing kids to the same indignities that the Nashos of the fifties and sixties experienced, simply to satisfy your own ideas of "discipline for young people", is pretty lame.

I don't believe for one moment that you have an any way considered the organization required to build such a feature into Australian life. Would you expect these people to go to Afghanistan, the way we sent Nashos to Vietnam, or just clear up the rubbish after a storm?

Sorry, individual, but opening your window and shouting slogans that make you feel better may be comforting to you. But at least make some attempt to understand exactly what you are proposing.

Pericles,
I'm sorry to have to say this but your reply is typical of those who resent to have to contribute to their own life rather than have the Government mollycoddle them from cradle to grave. Your argument re cost is a ridiculous one. Cost is cost, no matter if you spend money on people doing nothing or giving people something to do.
I did specifically say national service not military. People against national service conveniently & deliberately choose to interprete it as military.
the only stereotypes in this debate are those trying to evade responsibility. It is not a matter of old farts raving on about the youth of today. It's about the adults of tomorrow. It is the responsibility of the decision makers of today to ensure tomorrow's adults are capable of being part of society. If you're not concerned about your old age then by all means be my guest but I for one do not wish to have my super fund eroded by having to pay more for insurance & cover up mindless development approvals in flood prone area as we'll see happening within weeks.

Please don't think you have to apologize for your views, individual, however mistaken they may be.

>>Pericles, I'm sorry to have to say this but your reply is typical of those who resent to have to contribute to their own life rather than have the Government mollycoddle them from cradle to grave<<

The assumption you make is that there are only two positions in a discussion. Here, it is either a disinclination to "give ones own life" (whatever that may mean), or being mollycoddled by the government.

This is a trick you pull quite often, I have noticed.

It is also, of course, quite illogical, and entirely a non sequitur.

Our armed forces place themselves in danger, simply by volunteering, and have everybody's gratitude and admiration, exactly for that reason.

Your suggestion is that if you choose not to volunteer, you are simply a passenger, "mollycoddled by the government".

This is, as I said, totally illogical, and has nothing to do with the introduction of National Service.

>>I did specifically say national service not military. People against national service conveniently & deliberately choose to interprete it as military.<<

Just as conveniently as you ignored the fact that in Australia, the term "National Service" has never been used in any context other than military.

Unlike, interestingly, in Israel, where they use the term to distinguish it from their almost-compulsory Military Service.

Now you have cleared up that misconception, though, you might take a few moments to explain exactly what you do mean.

>> It is the responsibility of the decision makers of today to ensure tomorrow's adults are capable of being part of society.<<

Is that so?

What then, in your view, is the role of parents, compared to the role of government? Where do the responsibilities meet. Do they in fact overlap?

I still believe that you are using it as shorthand for "I wish these young layabouts would get up off their backsides and do something useful for a change".

But I'm willing to learn.

Individual I have no intentions to hurt you.
But your in put to this your thread looks like mashed potatoes and pumpkin, after some one has tried to separate it.
National service has ALWAYS been military.
We have work for the dole and such, it fails almost every time.
I still have an interest in getting young workers a job, always will.
I want what you want, a job not the dole, training not a life of laboring, for the shrinking numbers of unemployed youth.
But it requires a form of socialism to put it in place.
Once governments trained and employed them, RTA/DMR railways water boards sewage it is a good idea but quite separate from this tragic disaster.
We are not flooded with unemployed, dole bludgers or not, we do have some.
Soon we will have even less we are near what is considered full employment.
I hope my side of politics has the guts to review welfare, to put a job of worth to both the community and the person before social security.
Mate your reply to pelican is off, it says more about you than any one re read it then pelicans posts.

Pericles,
I did not think it possible for someone to get things as wrong as you do here. Please only reply when you have something positive & constructive to contribute.
Belly,
ALWAYS ? as in 40 years ago ?
we are not flooded with dole bludgers ? I give you the benefit of doubt but can you deny that we're flooded with incompetent & impractical people who are kept at great cost to taxpayers & at the expense of more deserving working people.
Remember Queensland needs rebuilding & I'm afraid workers will need to be imported because our human resource is just not made for dirty work. A national service would not discriminate against anyone by not putting people to work.