As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I must admit that regardless of my personal views, I firstly look upon the constitutional validity of legislation even if it might be in conflict to my personal views. For example personally I deplore racism, but constitutionally Subsection 51(xxvi) provides for it.

We now have the following Bills;

a) Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007,
b) Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Bill 2007
c) Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response)(No. 1) 2007-2008
d) Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response)(No. 2) 2007-2008

Lets look at it from a constitutional basis.
Prior to the 1967 referendum States and Territories were entitled to legislate as to Aboriginals and the Commonwealth of Australia was not. Since the 1967 referendum this all changed as the moment the Commonwealth of Australia commenced to legislate this was the end of all State and Territories legislative powers.
It means that the Commonwealth of Australia within Subsection 51(xxvi) only can legislate. It can only enact legislation in regard of Aboriginals for the entire Aboriginal race. As such not just against some Aboriginals.
It does not matter if the Aboriginals are unemployed, lawyers, politicians, doctors or whatever, any legislation must be against every Aboriginal regardless of their standing in society. Any removal or property right must be in regard of every Aboriginal not just some of them residing in the NT.
The Commonwealth of Australia is bound to legislation in a “UNIFORM” manner throughout the Commonwealth of Australia and as such none of the Bills fit this.
I challenge any politician to prove me constitutionally wrong, as if they cannot we are no more but harming Aboriginals more then resolving anything.
We ourselves must pursue any solution to be constitutionally permissible as after all that was what we decided with the 1967 referendum!
.
The Commonwealth of Australia as "sovereign" (within Section 122 of the constitution) of the Northen Teritory no longer has any legislatiive powers over Aboriginals!

Mr ghsh,
I hope these Unconstitutional laws are challenged in the High Court .

Mal Brough has said Land Rights "impoverished" Indigenous People.This a is patently ridiculous comment .

They have been "impoverished" by a distinct indifference by the Government to the Health and Wellbeing of NT Aboriginal Communities.

He is also incredibly ignorant of what land means to Aboriginal people .

I suggest he, John Howard and other "Interventionists"in the government are mounting another disgusting A O Neville Plan to "WHITEN" Northern Territory Aboriginals by controlling their lives and taking away their own decision making ability.

The Northern Territory Police Association has said the Permit System for Entry onto Aboriginal land is a vital tool to maintain Law and Order in the Northern Territory Indigenous Communities .

Why and how could EX army man Mal Brough possibly ignore the pleas of the Police - his Front Line Troops.

This General obviously has other plans .

kartiya jim, nice to hear from you. This post is very short due to the limited space permitted but if you are really interested in gaining more of my views as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” and perhaps also pass it on to others then why not forward me an e-mail so I can e-mail you material, including copies of material forwarded to politicians (including the NT Government).
E-mail address can be found at my website; http://schorel-hlavka.com and Blog; http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

If it is good enough to rob Aboriginals in the NT of their rights, lands, etc, then the same must be applied to Aboriginals elsewhere in the Commonwealth-of-Australia regardless if they are doctors/lawyers/politicians, etc.
Now, if that was to eventuate then quick smart Aboriginals elsewhere would campaign against the unconstitutional laws. Therefore spread the word.
.

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
And
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sixteenth-American-Jurisprudence-Second-Edition, 1998-version, Section-203 (formerly-Section-256)