"Hunter01" <hunter01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4826e240$0$22177$5a62ac22@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Swampfox wrote:
>> "Hunter01" <hunter01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:4826ca23$0$22139$5a62ac22@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> No, that might happen down the track, exactly as
>>> Howard also said.
>>
>> No.
>> Under Labor it WILL happen, which is not exactly as
>> Howard said.
>> And a good thing it is too.
>
>
> Nope, the way I read it it's only going to be
> trialed in pretty much the exact same places Howard
> was going to implement it. Howard also said it would
> also be later rolled into other areas if the same
> problems were seen to be present. Rudd has not
> really clarified exactly where-else he will roll it
> out yet, other than that it could be rolled out in
> cases where the Child Protection Agency makes a
> recommendation, not really far off Liberals stand at
> all.
Not a quantum leap, but substantially different
nonetheless.
Macklin stated categorically the other day that the
same system would be rolled out Australia wide later
this year, not a "maybe, if the need arises" that
Howard proposed.
Labor has also done the nuts and bolts work that was
lacking from anything Howard proposed.
>
> Personally I think that it should be universal to
> welfare recipients, but with some latitude, if said
> recipient needs to spend the dosh on something that
> is not a part of the program but is still reasonable
> that flexibility should be there, in the form of
> Centrelink evaluating the situation and making the
> payment for the recipient if deemed to be fair
> enough, or some such other form. If the recipient is
> willing to live on Maggi noodles for a period of
> time to try to get a vehicle which may help to get a
> job, or to pick up a suit for interviews, or
> whatever else, that latitude must be there.
Sounds good in theory, but it will need another layer
of bureacracy to administer and could become just
another work for the dole type white elephant.
It'll give the punters a warm inner glow though so
it's politically irresistable.
>
> Of course this will all cost the tax payer money,
> but with the ****e the current state and federal
> govts are blowing money on (and the previous govt as
> well, that's a problem common to all govts) I think
> this may be a worthwhile investment, and the ROI
> would be high even if intangible, these people would
> have food, would find it much harder to blow our tax
> dollars on drugs and alcohol, etc.etc. ****, if they
> want to drink and smoke they just might go out and
> get a job! 8]
The types of people likely to blow their cash on piss
and dope and neglect their kids are highly unlikely to
get a job.
Sounds good though.
>
> It's not like there's a shortage of work in this
> country...
Doesn't matter how much work's about, there will
always be dropkicks.
>
>
>>> <At
>>> this point the only real difference between the
>>> two of them is that Rudd seems to at least have
>>> put a bit of a framework on the idea in the form
>>> of a pinned card, although that's not really a
>>> claim to fame, it's not like Liberal would've had
>>> much option but to do it that way either.
>>
>> Either way it should have been done years ago, and
>> whether Labor or Liberal got the ball rolling is
>> immaterial.
>
>
> I agree with you completely on that point.
>
>
>> The Territory intervention is a knee jerk, ham
>> fisted **** up, and time will tell if something can
>> be salvaged from the wreckage,
>
>
> I don't agree with you, and neither do the likes of
> Noel Pearson, who made the same point you make above
> about the welfare quarantine, he couldn't give two
> ****s about who does it or who gets the credit, all
> he gives a **** about is Australia has known about
> the problems (kiddy rapes, violence, disease,
> poverty, lawlessness, these great so-called
> communities only have criminals enjoying life there,
> everyone else lives in fear) for a very long time,
> but has been too gutless due to greenleft kneejerk
> activist reactionaries to ever previously do
> anything about it.
Howard did **** all about it for over a decade, and
since when has he worried about greenleft kneejerk
activist reactionaries?
The bald truth of the matter is that to actually do
something constructive will cost a **** load of money,
far more than we've ever spent on abo's, and the
average city living Aussie doesn't give a stuff about
blackfellas living out in **** creek, and they don't
want a bucket load of their taxes spent on them.
By average city living Aussie I mean Aussies of Anglo,
Greek, Viet, Lebanese and every other ethnic mix that
makes up our society, not just your stereotype white
bigot.
None of them give a stuff about blackfellas, and the
politicians know it.
>
> Thank **** something at least is finally being done.
> Perhaps it could be done better, but at least the
> women and children of these communities are no
> longer copping the usual "leave it to them, it's the
> way they live" that they've been victims of for
> decades, most notably recently by the QLD state govt
> which seems to have been caught out trying to bury
> child abuse records in these communities.
I have no idea what motivated Howard, and I wouldn't
even guess as I wouldn't believe a word he said, but
Brough struck me as a decent man who was committed to
making a difference, and when he lost his seat it was
a loss both for the parliament and the Coalition.
>
>
>> but whatever principles apply to aboriginal
>> communities also apply equally to whites, although
>> the problems in white communities aren't as
>> endemic.
>
>
> Agree completely, and if any non-Indigenous (forget
> White, we're all Australian) communities have the
> same problems I'd want the army sent in post-haste
> to round up the ****s responsible and lock them up
> and throw away the key, and return some semblance of
> law and order to the place.
>
> In fact if the same treatment was applied
> universally we wouldn't be blowing untold amounts of
> tax paying dollars to try to sup****t these
> communities in the first place, they'd be considered
> unviable and the people would have to move somewhere
> viable, just like happens in any other town in
> Australia that ends up unable to sup****t itself. I'd
> have absolutely no problems with that either, 2
> birds with one stone.
And you're not alone.
I heard a blackfella from Cape York on radio a few
months ago saying that many remote communities are
simply unviable due to the exhorbitant cost of
providing services and that they can never produce
sustainable employment.
The catch is that no one else in Australia has been
told where they have to live or forcibly removed from
their homes.
There were thousands of hippies living in **** creek
in the 70's collecting the dole and with no chance
whatsoever of doing a day's work, and nothing was done
about them so it's gonna be a cute trick to sell the
idea when it comes to abos.
|
