Aboriginal child abuse and the NT Intervention

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sure it does... and I'm quite aware of my own little peccadillos. I know what I am.

You, on the other hand - and your Indian friend - are worse.

Make your little numbers dance, Fido. I'm not going to argue about that low life expectancy with you, because you only see things from your.. rather distant perspective.

PM you Indian friend and those others and discuss my anglo mind, if you wish. I'm quite certain you have your little support groups. Those like you don't last long without them. I only wish you were harmless... but you're not. People like you perpetuate the problem.

You're really nothing new to me, and still less a stranger to the world at large.

Those who are convinced of their own righteousness.
Ambulance chasers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Would you allow me to have my two daughters with me here?
Another one of them had died and I had not seen her before she died
I would like the other two to be with me and comfort me
Please
Do not disappoint me for my heart is breaking

Margaret Harrison​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We're happy little Vegemites
As bright as bright can be.
We all enjoy our Vegemite
For breakfast, lunch, and tea.
Our mummies say we're growing stronger
Every single week,
Because we love our Vegemite
We all adore our Vegemite
It puts a rose in every cheek. ​

 

sure but it seems to have escaped your notice that the context in which my questions were framed was a response to an assertion by a sci member and as such, quite different

your article is nothing but a fucking hatchet job. when humans are described as "feral", when the misappropriation of monies by your white govt is blamed on its recipients, its easy to spot the bias and agenda

lets eyeball sihip...

*When it was announced almost 18 months ago, it was intended that SIHIP would result in the creation of 750 houses, as well as 230 upgraded houses and 2500 refurbishments. But as yet not a single new house has been built under the program. In July, the Territory's then Indigenous policy minister, Alison Anderson, quit the Labor party in disgust after a briefing from Mr Davidson.(Aug 19, 2009)​

Macklin blamed for Indigenous housing wrangle

just who is this macklin creature anyway....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.. a Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs with a lily white webpage

A NATIONAL scheme for Aboriginal housing is drastically behind schedule, with budget papers revealing that just 10 per cent of the houses due to be built this financial year are complete. The $5.5 billion National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing -- a 10-year funding package -- is due to provide 4200 houses and 4800 refurbished homes by 2018. But in the second year of the program, only 33 out of the targeted 320 new houses promised by the end of next month are finished (May 13, 2010)​

Aboriginal housing program way behind

1 August 2009 - Galarrwuy Yunupingu - IT'S a system designed to profit non-Aborigines. THIS week the Northern Territory and commonwealth governments confessed the key program in the Closing the Gap strategy was out of control and that, yet again, money was being diverted from the needy into the pockets of government treasuries and non-Aboriginal companies.

Thankfully two responsible ministers in the Territory, Alison Anderson and Karl Hampton, who represent Aboriginal electorates, blew the whistle, refusing to sit by and let another scam be run against the interests of Aborigines.

What was occurring under the banner of the Territory intervention was just business as usual as government departments, big non-Aboriginal companies, consultants, employees, ex-politicians and advisers got their hands on Aboriginal money. And not just a few million but hundreds of millions of dollars set aside by Kevin Rudd and the commonwealth to tackle decades of neglect in Aboriginal housing. ​

Direct talk and honest dealing

ja, so the anglo racists are also into petty thievery
aint that right, bellsybells?

oh i dont know. keep them in shacks and steal their housing money? steal their wages? piss on mabo? apologize but dont bother to compensate? give white angels, computers and black devils, crayons?

oh and if, by some strange turn of events, one is led to entertain thoughts about the morality of it all, i'd bid all y'all to be steadfast in your commitments to fuck jacky jacky and ensure he is no more.
after all, a 60000 year old run is long enough, ja?

 

A group of Australian Aborigines has asked the United Nations to register them as refugees, claiming emergency laws brought in to curb alcoholism and sexual abuse have made them outcasts in their own land. Richard Downs, a spokesperson for the Alywawarra nation which represents around 4000 indigenous people in central Australia, said the request had been given to James Anaya, a UN official visiting Australia on a fact finding mission. The request urged the UN to register the Alywawarra under the international refugee convention as internally displaced persons. Mr Downs said his people had been left with no choice because the 2007 Federal Intervention into indigenous communities in the Northern Territories had taken away their rights

The request for refugee states comes a month after 150 people walked off the community of Ampilatwatja, 200 miles (300 km) north-east of Alice Springs in protest at their living conditions including the raw sewerage that was flowing through their government-owned houses.

Mr Downs, a community leader at Ampilatwatja, said the community would continue to live in makeshift camps for another year if necessary.
​

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6810288.ece

 

now
lets look into a few anglo peccadilloes...

The great good fortune of Australia, its economic strength and its plasma screen middle class soaked in Christmas cheer, should not disguise the fact that at the heart of this nation is a sickness. One chilling look at the child sexual assaults and child pornography cases filling our courts tells you that something is very wrong. More troubling still, we are laying the foundation for long-term generational dysfunctionality.

Starkly put, here is what the problem looks like.

Between 1989 and 1994 about 12,000 items of child pornography were seized in Australia. This year, in one case alone, police seized 729,000 child pornography images and 2700 movie files.It's become a tidal wave to such an extent that the most common offence dealt with in the NSW Local Courts relates to possession of child pornography.

Look, too, at child sexual assault (children under the age of 15). The latest figures I've seen, in a study conducted at the University of NSW, show that in NSW's District Courts the most frequently charged offence of all cases finalised was sexual assault, with sexual offences against children constituting 66 per cent of that total.

The courts are drowning in sex cases.​

right about now the race apologetics will screech and bay at the top of their lungs that they have zero tolerance for that kind of shit and do prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. is that what happens tho?.....

There are other disturbing characteristics associated with this data, in particular the relatively low rate of guilty pleas and conviction rates once a case goes to trial.

According to a University of NSW study, in the District Courts guilty pleas for these offences were running at 45 per cent. The comparable rate for other criminal offences was about 70 per cent. In the Local Courts it is even lower, with 20 per cent of child sex defendants pleading guilty, compared to 57 per cent in other criminal categories.

One of the reasons for this is straightforward. The conviction rate at trial for child sexual assault defendants is about one in five. That is an 80 per cent not guilty or no bill rate, which seems unacceptably low when you consider that these sort of cases account for most of the courts' criminal workload.

In the Local Courts the figure is even more puzzling. The conviction rate in the cases set down for trial was 15 per cent. The overall conviction rate for assault cases was 47 per cent.Why would anyone plead guilty to child sexual assault when they have an 80 per cent chance of getting off (or, as criminal lawyers prefer to put it, being found not guilty)? To cap it off, more than half the appeals in NSW against conviction for child sexual assault are successful.​

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/getting-away-with-child-abuse-20101216-18zik.html

institutionally sanctioned pedophilia? certainly seems like it
there is also a curious place called geelong.....

NINETY-FOUR rapes reported in Geelong over 12 months may be shocking, but it's just a snapshot of date rape around Australia, an expert says.

Local police released the figures today while reassuring residents there had been no incidents of stranger attacks on the streets of the Victorian city, which has a population of about 137,000. A significant number of victims were alleged to have been raped by people known to them after drunken nights in pubs and clubs, police said. But NSW Rape Crisis Centre Chief Executive Karen Willis said the figures still didn’t reflect the extent of the date rape problem nationwide.

"Date rape is incredibly common,” she said. "Ninety-four reports equates to less than two a week. That is just the tip of the iceberg. "Less than one per cent of rapes and sexual assault are 'stranger danger' and these usually have a higher level of physical violence", Ms Willis said.

Ms Willis said that Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures show that 70 per cent of rapes and sexual assaults are carried out by someone well-known to the victim such as a family member or friend.​

jesus fucking christ
whats up with these people?
this shit has to stop
now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

wow
i had no idea that the twisted pathology is so deeply ingrained into you and your ilk's psyche. a term that is genuinely offensive to the larger world community when used to describe humans is normal and commonplace to you racist anglo aussies

for example... googling "feral aborigines" gets results that contain the term in conjunction with animals. i did find a single occurrence.....

Our placement was at Red Gum store, which is situated 280km north-east of Alice Springs and is 35km away from the Utopia region, an area famous for the quality of art its residents produce.
After 140km of bitumen and another 140km of rough red dirt road we arrived and were greeted by Margaret and Brian, an elderly couple running the shop. They told us what to expect in the store, mainly that the aborigines are 'feral bastards' that shouldn't be trusted. It seemed a little harsh but we took note yet still looked forward to the experience to come. ​

relatives of yours, bells?
and please fess up. in addition to "feral bastards", its "abo" this and "abo" that, right?

/snort

whatever happened to "primitive"? not harsh and dehumanizing enough for you racists?

/chuckle

 

tedious
i suggest you click on the links. here is how you anglos pissed on mabo...

6. The Committee, having considered a series of new amendments to the Native Title Act, as adopted in 1998, expresses concern over the compatibility of the Native Title Act, as currently amended, with the State party’s international obligations under the Convention. While the original Native Title Act recognizes and seeks to protect indigenous title, provisions that extinguish or impair the exercise of indigenous title rights and interests pervade the amended Act. While the original 1993 Native Title Act was delicately balanced between the rights of indigenous and non-indigenous title holders, the amended Act appears to create legal certainty for Governments and third parties at the expense of indigenous title.

7. The Committee notes, in particular, four specific provisions that discriminate against indigenous title holders under the newly amended Act. These include the Act’s “validation” provisions; the “confirmation of extinguishment” provisions; the primary production upgrade provisions; and restrictions concerning the right of indigenous title holders to negotiate non-indigenous land uses.

8. These provisions raise concerns that the amended Act appears to wind back the protections of indigenous title offered in the Mabo decision of the High Court of Australia and the 1993 Native Title Act. As such, the amended Act cannot be considered to be a special measure within the meaning of articles 1(4) and 2(2) of the Convention and raises concerns about the State party’s compliance with articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.

9. The lack of effective participation by indigenous communities in the formulation of the amendments also raises concerns with respect to the State party’s compliance with its obligations under article 5(c) of the Convention. Calling upon States parties to “recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their common lands, territories and resources,” the Committee, in its general recommendation XXIII, stressed the importance of ensuring “that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life, and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent.”​

ja, the 54th session of the un's cerd. 1991
you fuckers play like a goddamn broken record. your racism is the most tenacious i have ever seen

as in the "5.5 billion National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing -- a 10-year funding package." the program started in 09 so close to a billion dollars has to be accounted for. only 32 or so houses are reported to have been built. where is the fucking money?. you seriously want me to believe the aborigines get the money to construct their own houses only to turn around and blow it all on booze? c'mon bellsy, whose pocket? what overhead? diverted to where?

rather than trying to bullshit with exaggerated tales of "black graft", lets eyeball how atsic was structured

From the outset, ATSIC and its relationship with the Australian Government was criticised from a range of standpoints. Supporters of Indigenous self-determination criticised ATSIC for its lack of autonomy from government and its failure to shape Indigenous affairs. They claimed that ATSIC's ministerial advice fell on deaf ears; that ATSIC's service delivery programs operated at the margins with the major portfolios of health and education run by mainstream agencies, that ATSIC produced a White bureaucracy because it was unable to employ its own staff, and that it was subject to extensive external reviews and onerous administrative compliance.

Others claimed that ATSIC was not properly representative, pointing to its lack of engagement with Indigenous communities. The final review of ATSIC in 2003 proposed the strengthening of regional councils to reduce the detachment of the national board from communities. Concerns were also raised about the under-representation of women in ATSIC, with fewer than 30 per cent women in ATSIC representative roles. Gary Foley argued that ATSIC was limited because it was modelled on White governance and only allowed the relatively few Indigenous people on the electoral roll to vote. Consequently, the voter turn-out for ATSIC was around 30 per cent. Ultimately, the Coalition dissolved ATSIC because it viewed mainstream service delivery to be more effective, and consistent with its ideological view of integration.​

yeah
prior to atsic, makarrata got canned for having hostile abos and atsic itself was replaced by..

The Coalition Government replaced ATSIC with the National Indigenous Council (NIC) - a group of 12 Indigenous advisers who it hand-picked. The NIC was publicly denounced for its non-representative nature; minimal impact on Indigenous policy, and little engagement with Indigenous communities. Aden Ridgeway suggested the body was 'just another example of Howard Government window dressing to hide its lack of action and achievement in Indigenous Affairs'. Consequently, the Labor Government did not extend the contracts of the NIC advisers when they came to an end in late 2007.​

all this shit is just a way to line your pockets at taxpayer expense, ja?
i mean, no sane racist would ever really want the natives in an advantageous position right?

lets take a look at the rest of your 2001 article on atsic...

*Acting ATSIC chief executive Geoff Scott downplayed the claims of widespread fraud, saying that while fraud had a great impact on indigenous communities, there was no evidence to suggest corruption was more prevalent than elsewhere in society.

*Professor Langton called for an education program to teach people to avoid being exploited. ``In my opinion, there is not as much corruption within indigenous communities as there is corruption by transient staff,'' she said.​

show me some numbers bells if you want to have any semblance of credibility

*The Government spent $2.3billion on Aboriginal affairs last year.​

that would be the year 2000. what was allocated? what was disbursed? whitey's pocket and overheads would be a good guess right? i mean there is only so much petrol one can sniff right. they live in squalor so where is the goddamn money they are supposed to be getting?

 

an affinity for hysterical tabloid accounts of atsic, ai?
i'll suppose i shall have to cite more sources that elaborate on the criticism of atsic presented earlier and go into detail about its structure. do read....

ATSIC and Total Identifiable Commonwealth Expenditure on Indigenous Affairs

One of the particular misconceptions about ATSIC's funding is that it is responsible for all Commonwealth spending on indigenous affairs, when this is not, and never really has been, the case. ATSIC has only ever administered around half of the Commonwealth's total identifiable expenditure on indigenous affairs. The other half in the order of $1.3 billion in 200203is spent through various agencies in other areas, in particular the employment, education and training, social security, and health portfolios. In recent years, ATSIC's share of the total indigenous funding pie has slightly decreased. This has been interpreted by some commentators as a 'mainstreaming' of indigenous-specific programs at ATSIC's expense.

When the Coalition government came to office in 1996, ATSIC's overall funding was reduced in the 1996 Federal Budget by around 11 per cent. At the same time, large proportions of ATSIC's budget were quarantined by the Government: that is, ATSIC was required to maintain certain levels of expenditure on particular programs (including CDEP and CHIP).( At the time, this forced the closure of many of ATSIC's smaller programs, particularly those that had been established in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. What this means is that the proportion of ATSIC's spending which is actually at its own discretion, that is, not predetermined by the Commonwealth government, is relatively small. The size of ATSIC's 'discretionary' budget as a proportion of total identifiable Commonwealth indigenous affairs expenditure is smaller still, as Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate.

Figure 1: Total ATSIC Expenditure

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 2: Total Identifiable Commonwealth Expenditure on Indigenous Programs

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In this context it is also important to point out that ATSIC does not have responsibility for many of the areas for which its 'performance' is often criticised. For instance, ATSIC has not had responsibility for primary indigenous health care since the Keating Government transferred responsibility for health from ATSIC to the Department of Human Services and Health (as it was then known) in 1995. Yet, perhaps because of its unique amalgam of executive and representative functions, and the $1 billion of Commonwealth funding that it does control, ATSIC has become an easily identifiable symbol of the perceived failure of government spending on indigenous specific programs to yield big, quick results. An editorial in The Australian in March of this year, for example, which discussed the 'intensifying health crisis for remote Aboriginal Australians', said that it was ATSIC and not the Department of Health that 'has failed these people'.

Another issue which has been refracted through broader debates about ATSIC funding is the question of whether ATSIC's services and programs should be a supplement to, or delivered instead of, 'mainstream' services. That is, whether ATSIC's programs should complement and add to mainstream services so that they meet the specific needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, or whether they should replace them. This has been a perennial source of debate since ATSIC's inception.

ATSIC argues that its programs are only designed to supplement funding and programs provided by other Commonwealth, state and territory agencies. However, there is often a gap, particularly in rural and remote Aboriginal communities, between what should be provided to indigenous peoples through mainstream service delivery agencies, and what is actually the case. ATSIC is often left to fill the gaps left by mainstream service delivery agencies. For example, part of ATSIC's expenditure through CHIP goes towards the provision of basic services such as running water and electricity in remote indigenous communities. Subsequently, as a recent Commonwealth Grants Commission report commented, the 'failure of mainstream programs to effectively address needs of indigenous peoples means that Indigenous-specific programs are expected to do more than they were designed for'. It is for this reason that Geoff Clark and his fellow commissioners, and others before them, have complained that ATSIC has too often been a scapegoat for the inadequacies of all levels of government in indigenous affairs.

Accountability

'Accountability' has been a long-running theme in debates about ATSIC since its inception, as the discussion about the lead-up to ATSIC's establishment above attests. It is often assumed that ATSIC is unaccountable, that its processes are not transparent, that its funds are subject to mismanagement, and subsequently, that ATSIC is both inefficient and incompetent. For example, in his speech to the Victorian Liberal Speakers Group in March 2003, Christopher Pyne said that most Australians would have some level of awareness that ATSIC is 'inefficient', that it is 'not held to account in the same way as non-Indigenous government bodies', and that its culture is one of 'waste, corruption and nepotism'.

Recent media reports about ATSIC Chairman Geoff Clark's wife going on a taxpayer funded trip to Ireland in 2002, and allegations about fraud and corruption in Queensland Aboriginal organisations associated with ATSIC Deputy Chair Ray Robinson, have helped to reinforce these perceptions. In light of this renewed focus on accountability, it is useful to review ATSIC's track record in accountability since its establishment.

As discussed above, when Gerry Hand reintroduced the ATSIC legislation to the Parliament in May 1989, its strengthened accountability mechanisms included the creation of an internal Office of Evaluation and Audit, which regularly monitors ATSIC's programs. ATSIC is the only Commonwealth statutory authority or department that has its own internal audit office. Another organisation which operates under the ATSIC Act the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations monitors funds distributed by ATSIC to Aboriginal corporations.

Additionally, ATSIC has been the subject of several external reviews and inquiries since it commenced operations in 1990. For example, one of the Howard Government's first actions in Aboriginal affairs upon coming to government was the appointment of a special auditor to examine accountability within ATSIC (and TSRA) funded organisations to determine whether or not the organisations were 'fit and proper' bodies to receive public funds. This was ostensibly in response to 'community concern' about an apparent 'haemorrhaging of public funds'. The audit, conducted by accounting firm KPMG, found that 95 per cent of the 1122 organisations reviewed were cleared for further funding, while 60 organisations (five per cent) were not. Lowitja O'Donoghue points out that the audit 'uncovered no instances of fraud, but it did discover a system of grant administration that was so detailed as to make breaches of grant conditions almost inevitable'. The report recommended training for administrators of Aboriginal organisations for example, in financial management expertise but noted that budget cuts imposed on ATSIC in the 19961997 Commonwealth budget had resulted in the termination of the Community Training Program, significantly reducing 'the capacity of ATSIC to fund management training in organisations'.

Many commentators argue that ATSIC is subject to more onerous accountability requirements than many other government departments and agencies. For example, according to O'Donoghue, 'if there is an "industry" in Aboriginal affairs, it is an accountability industry'. Ivanitz and McPhail also suggest that the 'portrayal of ATSIC as lacking accountability' has historically been used as 'symbolic justification for removing power from Aboriginal people rather than seriously addressing the issue of how to substantively empower Aboriginal people'. This comment is especially current in light of the changes to ATSIC recently announced by Minister Ruddock, discussed below. Ivanitz and McPhail make the further point that ATSIC has had to struggle constantly in a contest between two conflicting sets of 'accountability': accountability to the Parliament for expenditure of public monies, but also accountability to the indigenous groups and communities who elect ATSIC's office bearers, as mentioned above.​

Make or Break? A Background to the ATSIC Changes and the ATSIC Review 2003

and to reiterate ad nauseum,this time in 2004

Funding

Although ATSIC seemed to be a significant step along the self-determination path, it was constrained in many ways, particularly in regard to its funding. From its first days, ATSIC was subject to intense public and political scrutiny, no more so than in the areas of expenditure and accountability. The levels of funding ATSIC received, and what it could and could not do with the money, were the subject of a series of misconceptions about ATSIC over the course of its 14-year existence. Issues of funding were also the focal point for debates about ATSIC’s effectiveness. Even though ATSIC was not the primary service provider in many areas—such as health care and education—it was often blamed when not enough was seen to be done in these areas.

In 2003–04, ATSIC/ATSIS received approximately $1.3 billion in funding from the Commonwealth Government. This represented approximately 46 per cent of the total $2.8 billion identifiable Commonwealth expenditure on Indigenous affairs in 2003–04. Yet one of the particular misconceptions about ATSIC was that it was responsible for all Commonwealth spending on Indigenous programs, when this was never the case (the rest of the Commonwealth’s Indigenous affairs budget—around $1.5 billion in 2003–04—was spent through other agencies, such as in the education, health, and social security portfolios).

The majority of ATSIC’s budget was spent on economic development programs, including the Community Development Employment Project (CDEP) scheme. ATSIC’s second biggest area of expenditure (usually around one-third of ATSIC’s budget) was spent on programs aimed at improving Indigenous peoples’ social and physical wellbeing, including the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP). The remaining 20 per cent or so was spent on a range of programs including those geared towards the preservation and promotion of Indigenous culture and heritage, and the advancement of Indigenous rights and equity.

It is important to note that the vast majority of ATSIC’s budget (around 85 per cent, or approximately $1.1 billion in 2003–04) was quarantined by the government for expenditure on particular programs (including CDEP and CHIP). What this meant was that the proportion of ATSIC’s spending which was actually at its own discretion, that is, not predetermined by the government, was relatively small. The size of ATSIC’s discretionary budget as a proportion of total identifiable Commonwealth expenditure on Indigenous affairs was therefore even smaller still. Yet, perhaps because of its unique blend of executive and representative functions, and its highly visible presence in an area where ‘success’ is difficult to define and therefore hard to achieve, ATSIC was an easily identifiable symbol of the perceived failure of government spending on Indigenous-specific programs to yield sufficiently positive results. Because of misconceptions around ATSIC’s funding, many of ATSIC’s elected representatives complained that it was the scapegoat for the inadequacies of all levels of government in Indigenous affairs. Nonetheless, it is the perception of ATSIC itself as a failure that has provided the rationale for the Government’s proposal to abolish the peak Indigenous body

In recent times, there seems to have developed a perception of ATSIC as being a body that has not only failed to deliver, but which seemed to be variously ‘out of control’ or ‘in crisis’. Even the Labor Party, which established ATSIC in 1989, came to the view that the body should be dismantled. This perception seems to have been fuelled by the various allegations of assault, sexual assault, and fraud made against some of ATSIC’s most senior office-bearers over the last few years. Elected bodies tend to draw attention to their own failures (or perceived failures) in a way that mainstreamed service delivery agencies are able to avoid. This can be exacerbated by the presence of high-profile, controversial Indigenous politicians, each with their own political aims and needs. It is not necessarily a reason for the removal of such a body.​

The end of ATSIC and the future administration of Indigenous affairs 2004


ja
exploit and blame the victims
its all their fault
feral bastards with their multiple gang rapes and billions squandered on legal fees

/chuckle

 

hahaha

The inquiry heard that Aboriginal children suffer the highest rates of ear disease and hearing loss of any people in the world. There's no national survey to establish the exact size of the problem; but in both remote and urban areas, there are signs of a national epidemic. The Federal Department of Health and Ageing cited a recent survey of 29 NT communities, which found only seven per cent of Aboriginal children had healthy middle ears. An audiologist at Alice Springs, who asked not to be named, says that if she finds one single child with normal hearing in the communities she visits, she's 'ecstatic'. From its work in Perth schools, Telethon Speech and Hearing says on average 4 out of 10 indigenous children can't pass a hearing screening. At one all-Aboriginal primary school in Perth, Moorditj Noongar Community College, the failure rate two years ago was 75%.​

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/26/3077535.htm

ja
the ongoing genocide

Lateline - 25/11/2010: Glue ear linked to Indigenous crime

 

i'll give you references
you read and deliver a verdict

http://www.janesoceania.com/australia_aboriginal_agriculture/index1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_archaeology#The_cultivation_question
http://austhrutime.com/agriculture.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567447/

 

nice
another hysterical account of what is at best an emphasis on negative tabloid journalism. these anglo racists simply cannot think in rational and fair manner but are compelled to give into their basest impulses when the natives are involved.

since atsic's discretionary spending was really just nickles and dimes at most, i shall also feign shock and outrage at the nepotism and pork barrel projects. it was all those feral bastards fault. they are unable to govern themselves

there is something fundamentally pathological about the need to absolve the anglos of any wrongdoing and the incessant compulsion to make the most desperate of excuses by blaming the victims for your misadventures.

The ATSIC review

It is important to note that the government’s moves to abolish ATSIC (and the Opposition’s pledge to do likewise) run contrary to many of the major recommendations of the review into ATSIC’s roles and functions commissioned by the government in November 2002. The review panel appointed by the government—which was comprised of former NSW Liberal state minister John Hannaford, Indigenous academic and Reconciliation Australia Co-Chair Jackie Huggins, and former federal Labor minister Bob Collins—was asked by the Government to ‘examine and make recommendations to government on how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can in the future be best represented in the process of the development of Commonwealth policies and programs to assist them’.

The final report of the Review Panel, handed to the Government in November 2003, recommended against abolishing the body, though it concluded that ATSIC was in ‘urgent need of structural change’. For example, its recommendations included:

* an overhaul of ATSIC’s representative structure, in order to overcome the sense of detachment between local Indigenous communities and the national board
* a strengthening of, and increased emphasis on, regional planning processes
* a permanent delineation of the roles of ATSIC’s elected representatives and its administrative arm, but through amending the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 rather than the existence of a separate agency (ATSIS).​

ja the sane way of dealing with problem at hand. reform rather than abolish. the racist anglos however are incapable of giving the natives a fair shake....

lets eyeball how the racists viciously turn victims of genocide into criminals, drunks, welfare layabouts, wife beaters, pedophiles and truants in media thus ensuring that no meaningful dialogue between the two races could ever occur. lets look how bells's rhetoric with its emphasis on personalities and muckracking came about....

Inferential Racism and the "Other"

The historical context of representations of Indigenous people is central to how they are understood today. Meadows (2001) traced the development of media and journalistic practices since white settlement of Australia. He found that earlier examples of media coverage of Indigenous people have often consisted of stereotypical images that have been overtly racist. Examples include a subtitle from news magazine The Bulletin in May 1908 that proclaimed openly beneath its masthead: Australia for the Whiteman, a subtitle that remained unchanged until 1960 when the magazine changed ownership. Early Queensland newspapers such as the Moreton Bay Courier included a regular section titled The Blacks, which relayed to its readers the latest news of conflict between settlers and Indigenous Australians. More recently, coverage of Indigenous events and issues has continued to place Indigenous people in a particular way, but has accomplished this through a continuing structure of attitudes and inferential racism, rather than the previously overtly racist coverage. Meadows concluded that '... overall, Indigenous people remain largely excluded from mainstream media processes, their interests ignored, and their voices seldom, if ever, heard.'

Similar to Meadows, Smart Hall (1990) argues that instances of inferential racism are becoming more widespread and insidious in today's media than instances of overt racism. Hall describes inferential racism as:

"Those apparently naturalised representations of events and
situations relating to race, whether 'factual' or 'fictional',
which have racist premises and propositions inscribed in them as a
set of unquestioned assumptions. These enable racist statements to
be formulated without ever bringing into awareness the racist
predicates on which the statements are grounded. "

--------------------------------

A crucial element in examining media representations of Indigenous people is the use of stereotypes. While 76% of articles did not reinforce stereotypes, and many of these articles were factual accounts, 24% of articles did. An example of negative stereotyping appeared in an article titled Gloves off in Battle to Lead ATSIC. It opened with:

One has been accused of multiple rapes, which he denies. The other
went to jail for rape, which he says was an injustice, and is now
accused of corruption, which he denies. These are the Indigenous
heavyweights slugging it out for the leadership of the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

In the lead up to the elections, this article reduced the Chair and the Deputy Chair of ATSIC to a few exaggerated, overtly negative and simple characteristics, rather than focusing on their relative achievements or election promises. Such a depiction of these personalities was not uncommon in the reporting of ATSIC.

The media were quick to classify Clark as a rapist and a bully and continued to represent him in this damaging light. A multitude of articles mentioned either the allegations and/or charges made against Clark, even when they were not the main theme of the article, and subsequently not required in the context of the focus of the article. This is an extremely narrow and simplified focus of a specific aspect of one Indigenous person. While these issues do need to be reported, their prominence must be questioned.

The excessive and repeated instances of these stereotypical images is problematic, especially in a media context where numerous social, political, cultural, and economic issues were sidelined, and the positive achievements of ATSIC were rarely, if ever mentioned. The media have provided a symbolic frontier between the 'normal' and the 'deviant', the 'acceptable' and the 'unacceptable', and 'what belongs' with the 'other'. (37) While representations of Clark were not overtly racist, they were a continuation of 'us' and 'them' discourse, which only perpetuates social constructions of the racialised 'other'. As discovered by the National Inquiry into Racial Violence (1991), 'the perpetuation and promotion of negative racial stereotypes, a tendency towards conflictual and sensationalist reporting ... contribute to creating a social climate which is tolerant of racist violence'.​

Negative exposure: a snapshot of ATSIC in Australia's mainstream print media.

 

this is absurd. frag asked a straightforward question....

"I don't know if the Native Australians had developed agriculture before the conquest, but every time I ask that question no one replies so I assume that they did not, and that classifies them as a Paleolithic culture."

....and bells seamlessly segues into a justification for genocide? jesus fucking wept!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ahh
so you guys have delivered far more than promised? is that what you are asserting?

/toys with ballsybells