I find myself agreeing with... Pauline Hanson

[Old Koreelah]

Another side of homelessness: A family member is today cleaning up their old family home, which they’d rented out to some less well-off people known to them. These tenants enjoyed a sweet deal for DECADES and left the place a mess. Aged and infirm, the landlords are now risking serious injury doing the cleanup themselves (the commercial quote was humungous).

 

Why would anyone risk renting their place to unknowns, after being treated like this by people you knew?

[Old Koreelah]

21 minutes ago, onetrack said:

The biggest single problem with the homeless is that the largest majority of them have major levels of mental illness, which amounts to an inability to behave in a socially-acceptable manner...

Addressing their mental and social deficiencies should be a primary target for the social workers - and Govts should adequately fund the mental help these people need.

Agreed, but in return, they should do their part to ensure their kids don’t also become a burden on society.

Inter-generational welfare dependence seems to be increasing; if nothing is done to turn this around, we are in danger of repeating historic cycles of intolerance.

[old man emu]

55 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

Inter-generational welfare dependence seems to be increasing;

Someone should Voice that to Parliament.

[nomadpete]

Mental health is chronically underfunded. And money spent on it would return in spades over a period of time in many areas of society

 

Who knows, it might even result in less sociopathic politicians running the place.

[kgwilson]

Currently there are over 1000 immigrants arriving per week in Australia. They all have to live somewhere. Most are bringing substantial funds and this is partially fuelling the rental crisis. People who have been renting for 40-50 years are being given notice and the property re-let at double what they were paying. Where do these people go?.

 

House prices are on the rise again & they were already at ridiculous levels. People whinging at the 3.6% cash rate should check elsewhere in the world. It is now 5.25% in NZ, 5% in the US & 4.25% in the UK. 

 

Australia has relied on immigration for many years to bolster the economy and not have to go in to recession when everywhere else had to. To me this is a false economic ploy as the chickens will eventually come home to roost and it only takes a hiccup like the Covid pandemic & reduced house building to trigger it. Homelessness is just one of the most visible cosequences of this.

[facthunter]

Homes are Palaces compared with post war efforts. Carpeted, curtains fully furnished, air cond . 3 car garage "Biggest" in the world.  etc. Surely THAT has something to do with it?   Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I was impressed at Iceland's efforts in reducing homelessness. They don't try to socialize the people, they just give them a roof over their heads. Yes, the recipients will be ungrateful and make a mess of the place.

That is why I advocate special housing for mentally ill people, so that they don't freeze and also they don't just burn down the place for firewood.

Alas, as well as the homeless, we have to fight against the woke lot who only want unaffordable stuff for their ungrateful recipients.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Nev, a next-door neighbor from a previous life built a small 3 brm house and I reckon he mainly destroyed any resale value of the place.It looks  small compared with all the houses around it and it is.

If he had built a "normal " house, he would have made a lot of money. I reckon that the cost of the extra stuff in a bigger house would have been peanuts compared with the land price.

Hopefully, he will never try and sell so he will never know.

[facthunter]

A lot of GOOD houses are just demolished today. The Value is in the land because of it's location.  Nev

[old man emu]

Getting back to the Perils of Pauline, today she spoke in the Senate on a motion to enact a sunset clause in Native Title claims legislation. She proposes an end to the making of Native Title applications in June 2025. Not immediately, but time for any proposed applications to be prepared and submitted. She stated that by 2025, 62% of the continent will be owned by 2% of the population, while the other 98% has to work to finance land purchases. 

 

Another point she raised was that the very people who are supposed to benefit from rents, royalties, government funded programmes etc, are not seeing money going to to those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. She is crying out for accountability on behalf not only of Aborigines, but also non -Aborigines who miss out on an equitable distribution of government largesse.

 

I know that Pauline is not everyone's Number One, but at least listen to her speech. You have to remember that because her distractors like to tear apart anything she says, you can bet that she has some hard-working fact checkers go over what she intends to produce to back her statements.

 

 

[spacesailor]

My Daughter likes her a lot , & listens to her speeches. 

I Will vote for her this coming election. 

Not happy with Labor. 

spacesailor

[Marty_d]

Just like those Americans who vote for Trump...

[Jerry_Atrick]

Mayt not be related this this, but this is the stuff they have to put up with:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/fake-letter-scaremongering-about-indigenous-land-claims-sparks-outrage-20230912-p5e43n.html

 

[Marty_d]

I think that belongs in the other thread Jerry, but yes just another example of dirty tricks by the No camp. 

[old man emu]

Trying to understand what Native Title means and how it affects the legal powers of a person or persons to permit access and use of a defined area of land or waterway, I had a look at this entry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia . It seemed to be an unbiased description, just recounting facts. As clearly written as it is, I still don't have the foggiest idea of the effects of granting Native Title are if applied to my local area.

 

According to the Attorney-General's Department:

There are fundamental differences between land rights and native title. Land rights are rights created by the Australian, state or territory governments. Land rights usually consist of a grant of freehold or perpetual lease title to Indigenous Australians.

 

By contrast, native title arises as a result of the recognition, under Australian common law, of pre-existing Indigenous rights and interests according to traditional laws and customs. Native title is not a grant or right created by governments.

 

To me the word "title" in relation to any form of property is a legally binding acknowledgement that the property "belongs to" somebody and to remove it without that somebody's permission is stealing. It seems to me that the concept of "native title" describes something intangible. 

 

Does the acknowledgement of Native Title to an area  (usually an area defined according to information based on pre-European boundaries established by neighbouring Aboriginal groups and signified as a group's "country"}, simply mean that if a person has a legal title as understood in European culture to a part of that "country", aboriginal people can enter that land for cultural practices without breaching Section 4(1) of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act? Native Title would seem to allow cultural activities as a lawful excuse.

 

4   Unlawful entry on inclosed lands

(1)  Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person), enters into inclosed lands without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands, or who remains on those lands after being requested by the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands to leave those lands, is liable to a penalty not exceeding—

 

[spacesailor]

Yes ! , I had to buy a " toll " ticket to use the road in Northern Territory Australia. 

From ' Parks to Tamworth . That's a big area,  of native title. 

spacesailor

[willedoo]

Native title doesn't apply to Freehold land. In most areas where native title has been granted, there are existing lease holders holding grazing leases (the graziers.) Native title gives the holders access rights for traditional reasons, but I'm fairly sure they have to notify the grazing lease holder if they are coming onto the property. They still have to abide by all the requirements like closing gates etc., and not causing any disruption to the grazing business. Native title gives the holders bugger all in reality.

[willedoo]

11 hours ago, old man emu said:

To me the word "title" in relation to any form of property is a legally binding acknowledgement that the property "belongs to" somebody and to remove it without that somebody's permission is stealing. It seems to me that the concept of "native title" describes something intangible. 

King Charlie owns it all. Even our Freehold title is just a glorified lease, even though it's probably the most secure. If we truly owned it, no private land could be resumed by the Government.

[spacesailor]

And we wouldn't have to pay the councils rates on our lease. 

Broken my arm , elbow & torn ligament in my shoulder. When I tripped on Councils pothole .

spacesailor

 

[old man emu]

11 hours ago, willedoo said:

King Charlie owns it all. Even our Freehold title is just a glorified lease, even though it's probably the most secure. If we truly owned it, no private land could be resumed by the Government.

I think you have identified the means by which the Government can make Land Rights grants. If the Monarch owns the lands, then it is the Monarch's right to grant exclusive rights of occupation to any portion of those lands. That grant is an entitlement. From that word we get "title" which is the legal right to own a piece of land or a building, or a document that proves this right.

 

The Government, as the administrative body of the Monarch, can advise the Monarch if the title referring to a piece of land should be given to a person or legal entity. Obviously, for the sake of efficiency, the authority to make those grants has been delegated to the Government.

[Old Koreelah]

“Native Title” is a welcome improvement to our legal system, allowing Indig people access to traditional lands. I knew an old Bandjalung songman who remembered being shot at when trying to exercise traditional rites on their ancestral lands.

[nomadpete]

9 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

I knew an old Bandjalung songman who remembered being shot at when trying to exercise traditional rites on their ancestral lands.

Yeah and my granddads was shot at by a disgruntled farmer, back when he was prospecting for gold.

My ancestors (about 4 generations ago) had farmland in North Qld and they happily welcomed the local nomadic indigenous   to come every year and party in their traditional style.

There are stories of both sides. It is unbalanced to cherrypick the negative stories. Nobody seems to count the positive stories.

[Old Koreelah]

9 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

My ancestors (about 4 generations ago) had farmland in North Qld and they happily welcomed the local nomadic indigenous   to come every year and party in their traditional style.

There are stories of both sides. It is unbalanced to cherrypick the negative stories. Nobody seems to count the positive stories.

There are plenty of positive stories, but no enough make it to the media- bad news sells more papers!
I know farmers who protect ancient occupation sites, who get along well with old indig people. 

[facthunter]

Fear & Hate, Makes Newspaper sales great. Propaganda  makes you  stop thinking, effectively.  Nev

[facthunter]

Pauleen tried to get funded by the NRA (which would probably be illegal) and had champagne to Celebrate Trumps election to POTUS.  Every vote cast for Her show PHON, means more money to her "Party", from the Taxpayer. Nev

Edited September 13, 2023 by facthunter
expand