Brian Ross wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 11:17pm:


Most Muslims accept and believe in multiculturalism eh?  You can of course demonstrate that. 
Quote:


I see a yes, I don't see you demonstrating that. 

Your claim Brian. Most Muslims accept and believe in multiculturalism.  Your words and yours to prove.

Secret Wars wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 11:33pm:


Nope.  Yours to disprove.   I made a statement.  Up to you to disprove it.   

Mistress Nicole wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 4:34pm:


In a lot of instances Nicole they had to agree to behavioural change contracts in order to access government funding, including funding for basic citizenship services and entitlements. In the case of the first publicly announced SRA this was a petrol bowser and health checks from the Government in return for hygiene measures including face washing. This was to address trachoma rates in the Mulan community.

SRAs accounted for only about one per cent of Federal Indigenous expenditure. How can fiddling with one per cent of Indigenous funding make any real impact, particularly on Indigenous disadvantage?

By focusing public debate on SRAs, the Government evaded scrutiny over the other 99 per cent of Indigenous funding.

During the course of the SRAs the Indigenous Affairs Minister would often explain the need to listen directly to local communities and families so that ‘our funding hits the mark’.

Quote:


Intermediaries was of course ATSIC.

Quote:


Though ATSIC had it's difficulties Indigenous communities and a range of Indigenous service organisations interfaced with ATSIC Regional Councils, providing a largely Indigenous-controlled consultation and governance structure for setting local and regional priorities. This structure provided significant Indigenous participation in and control of policy development and service delivery.

What replaced ATSIC was a new ‘Western construct’ – the unelected, bureaucrat-driven Indigenous Coordination Centres (‘ICC’s) which are the Government’s mainstream agency one-stop-shops. It seems the clipboard has a secure future in Indigenous affairs after all.

The fact that SRAs were not legally enforceable placed all of the power with the Government and very little in the hands of communities. The Government can drag its heels or renege on funding if it chooses.  For example, Murdi Paaki did not received any of the 200 air conditioners promised by the Government in an SRA signed for 3 years. We are still unsure if Mulan got it's bowser.

No sanctions were available to communities who felt let down by the Government. There was no mechanism to independently scrutinise whether the Government was meeting its responsibilities and compel it to act.

What was most offensive about SRAs to Indigenous people is that they were racially discriminatory and patronising. They make funding conditional on behavioural change and other commitments which were not required from non-Indigenous communities.

SRAs also reinforce negative stereotypes about Aboriginal people. By implying a need for measures by the Government to force Indigenous communities and families to act responsibly, they conceal Indigenous initiative and success in taking responsibility for community problems. Instead, the Government claims the credit. For example, when the Mulan SRA became public, the Government neglected to mention that the community had already cut trachoma rates as a result of its own initiative. It had been running the face washing program for 18 months prior to signing the SRA.

This detail was conveniently overlooked by the Federal Education, Science and Training Minister, Brendan Nelson

Quote:


A further advantage to the government is that the community level provides a micro scale that is distanced from ‘headline indicators’ and national statistics, yet significant enough to provide public relations mileage out of the success of relatively minor projects. It is much easier to achieve and get credit for a positive outcome in a single community as against the huge task of achieving the same level of outcome on a national scale.

Aussie wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 10:00pm:


Hello, anyone home?  Were you just bullshitting Nichole Page 2016 when you said you had some idea you would post?

Quote:



Questions, questions and more questions.  When will those ideas you proudly told us you had ever see the light of day?

This is just so reminiscent of another Member here who often told us they would produce something, and never ever, ever did.

cods wrote on May 28^th, 2016 at 7:35pm:



Quote:


Perhaps you missed my answer to that very question you asked in the PUP Thread.

Quote:


Indeed I did.  You were posting about his intent to run for the Senate some days after he announced (and I posted here) that he was not running.

Quote:


I have never attended any Meetings trying to change anyone's perverted mind, cods.  Where do you get this silly stuff from?

The only effort you have put in, Nicole Page 2016, is to ask questions sometimes superficially clad in vacuous commentary.  All you are doing, is riding on the coat-tails of what others post......just with questions.

Pages ago, you promised us you had some ideas of you own.

When will we ever see them?  (If we are not to be blessed with them, and I'm sure they'd be ever so awesome, just say so, and I can get some sleep at night not having to obsess about it.)