Paul,

The initial setup of postal services, TV and radio, are fine examples of government investment in infrastructure. However, many decades later, the private sector is more than capable and willing to run these enterprises, and public ownership of these enterprises is not only wildly wasteful of taxpayers money, but harmful to the businesses that pay the tax.

Hi Paul,

Indigenous people in the most remote 'communities' receive the same personal benefits as anybody else in Australia when they are entitled to them: do you know of examples where they don't ?

But if you mean that 'communities' of five and eight people don't have a social worker or teacher or police officer, then yes, and neither do any similar non-Indigenous populations. A few months ago, The Australian ran an article about a 'community' of a dozen or so which was not being attended to by any public officer, teacher, etc. - and at the end of the article, casually mentioned that it was three miles out of a town.

Fair enough. Surely there must be some sort of rough and ready criterion for the provision of, say, a social worker, or teacher, taking into account isolation (islands in the Torres Strait, for example), remoteness, dire need, as well as numbers of the population. A school with five pupils ? A full-time social worker for fifteen twenty people ? Probably not.

I was amazed, when the Intervention was set up back in 2007, that many 'communities' had never had police stationed there - like most lefties, I assumed that pretty much every 'community' with more than, say, fifty people, had always had police stationed there. But no. That explained a hell of a lot about violence and abuse.

Reality provides more accurate perspectives, Paul :)

Joe

Hi Joe, again you fail to follow the conversation, and fail to comprehend what I said. Asking of me "Indigenous people in the most remote 'communities' receive the same personal benefits as anybody else in Australia when they are entitled to them: do you know of examples where they don't? Did I say they did not, I did not raise that as an issue, OTB made mention of Island and Indiginous, so I do not need to answer that question.

What I'm saying is there are those who would deny such people government services on the grounds of a belief that these people are unworthy, yet at the same time are bleating about government failure to provide those they approve of services, in this case to quote OTB "Hasbeen, he is criticising non-supply of the much-promised internet"

If you are philosophically opposed to government socialism, and hasbeen has made that point more than once on the forum, why then would you pick and choose, who should receive government largesse, that is all I asked.

Hi Paul,

Getting a bit away from the topic but ....

Are you suggesting that " .... those who would deny such people government services on the grounds of a belief that these people are unworthy .... " are in positions to do so ? Or are you simply criticising other people's supposed opinions ? And that it happens ? Where ?

I'm sure even you would agree that there are limits on how, what and where government services should be provided: if someone want to live alone prospecting somewhere out in the sticks, of course he/she should have access to any standard benefit entitlements, but perhaps no more specific services than anybody else in similar circumstances. Surely there is a threshold, perhaps complicated to calculate, but setting necessarily lower limits on the relationships between remoteness, population size and need.

I fully agree with my friend Sara Hudson in her Review of more than a thousand Indigenous programs, cited in today's Australian, that services should be on the basis of need, and that programs should be far more rigorously assessed and evaluated. Everybody in the business knows of how cock-eyed those processes seem to work, with the funding for effective programs cut (perhaps because they have achieved something, therefore ... ?) while funding for utterly dead-loss programs is extended (let's give them another year or two), and yet more Indigenous staff are appointed to swan around with no discernible duties, perhaps with a vehicle provided.

Anyway, back to topic. Where were we ? Wow, nearly a week ago: O Sung Wu's comment. To put my oar in:

* wouldn't most of us assume that it would be reasonable for China or any country, including Australia, to be wary of selling off ITS utilities and infrastructure to cashed-up foreigners ?

* as for land,

[TBC]

[continued]

" as for land, such as the Kidman cattle and sheep stations, it's overlooked that most of that land would be held on 42-year leases, it would not be freehold (although some is in WA and Queensland). So the land couldn't be 'bought', but the leases for the use of it could be, and they expire at different times, which would give governments some measure of control, if they had the wits (see below).

* of all infrastructure, one would have thought that ports would be very much off-limits. And that the port of Darwin would be even more so.

* do government responsibilities shrink the brain, create plaque or blood clots, cripple intelligence and even bring on Alzheimer's ? Has any research ever been done on that ?

Crazy world.

Joe

Paul1405,

As per usual, instead of answering the question that was implied in my original response to you, you duck and weave, purporting to have asked the question yourself.

However, it was your obvious bias in denying government services to Hasbeen that raised the issue in your reply to Hasbeen. See here,

<Paul1405, "Remotes who want that lifestyle in the scrub or up a tree, should just have to make do with drums and smoke signals, or cough up the dosh for phones, internet and all those other services and benefits they want the majority to foot the bill for"

Disregarding your use of false analogy (pub argument) that you seem unaware of and taking you up on example, would you be saying the same where occupants of islands that are not part of Australia are demanding Australian taxpayer assistance and getting it? Islands that have come and gone over the ages, but the present occupants have convinced the hanky-wringers that somehow Australia is responsible. Others expect roads and other infrastructure, just because, but no strings attached and no thanks expected.

What about Aborigines in remote locations some with one family 'settlements'. Are they wrong to be expecting the same education, health, public utilities that can be supplied through economies of scale in capitals? It is quite impossible to provide the services that activists and Greens demand.

Returning to your criticism of Hasbeen, he is criticising non-supply of the much-promised internet in a location that is not 'remote' as I understand from his previous posts.>
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 22 August 2016 11:44:24 AM

Now, what about an answer to that question, why is it good for some to receive unearned benefits from Government, but not for others?