Albo's question

[spacesailor]

With the immigration that is currently happening . ( no Australian buying in my area ).

Whitey,s will soon need a .

"Voice to Parliament"

or end up like Fiji .

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

NOBODY has even tried to explain a for instance way in which this voice could benefit aborigines.  So far, i have only seen them influence things in a negative way, like stopping whitefellers climbing bits of the Grampians .

As onetrack has pointed out, they already get lots of money and I can attest how they get superior treatment for tertiary admissions. So what would be the benefits?

[nomadpete]

I just cannot see any way that this proposed special 'voice' can provide any improvement in the lives of those (aboriginals) most in need.

[Jerry_Atrick]

20 hours ago, nomadpete said:

'm not taking about the historic indigenous culture. That is largely gone from recent generations.

 

The current culture practiced by many (possibly a majority, judging by what I have seen in the past 20+ years), cannot be called 'constructive', so I refer to it as destructive.

Alcoholism and other drug abuse is not forced onto anybody, regardless of skin tint.

OK, so somewhere in between white-fella arriving and now, the culture (or behaviour has shifted from thriving societies, no doubt with other issues,  to destructive or imploding societies where substance abuse, violence and to an effect lawless features prominently.  It was certainly being reported when I was a kid, so I would say that is three normal generations at least. I am guessing it has been a problem for a lot longer. 

 

Given, by your own words it is the majority, would indicate something went very wrong somewhere along the line, and would it not indicate some for of systemic change from thriving to diving? Could it be that a culture that has had to work to survive in its society just gives up a will to put in effort? Or could it be more fundamental - like a change imposed on them that they were not ready for, nor were provided the necessary support/tools for that change.

 

You're right - no one is forced into substance abuse, but circumstances can certainly make it hard to resist. For example, these substances were all new to the black-fella, and it provided temporary relief for whatever mental (and possibly physical) anguish they were suffering. No one cares, and, for the suppliers of booze, methylated spirits, and the like, it is a new market to make money from. Remember, we are talking about people who were not even considered Australian in their indigenous land, let alone have any of the facilities provided for them in the same way non-native Aussies did. Coupled that with intergenerational racism and oppression, and, yeah, I can start to see why the majority are where they allegedly are.  So, while it may technically be their choice, they may not be in a frame of mind to make a rational choice.

20 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Failing to educate one's children or to teach basic personal responsibility for one's actions, is a choice made by parents.

It is hard for a parent to educate their kids when they have not had that education and the system fails to provide it, except through a stick.. and rotten one at that.. or do they somehow magically know what is what through osmosis?

 

20 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Both of the above are clearly a major problem in some marginalised whities, and many indigenous communities.

Neither can be cured by introducing special legislation or divisive government procedures - laws are oft ignored by disenfranshised people.

I disagree that neither can be resolved by the introduction of special legislation. Say, for example, that legislation required (and funded) appropriate professionals to assess a community, and with that community's consultation, an intervention and remediation plan, as well as other ancillary laws (e.g. prohibition of alcohol and drugs, with an exception for the latter on prescription), and the monitoring is in place to ensure the milestones are being effectively met, with remediation powers, etc., such a law can work. Because this is an intergenerational problem, it will probably take more than a generation to succeed, but special legislation can succeed (and has in many other jurisdictions). And, yes, it may be perceived to be divisive, but "some marginalised whities" does not sound as imperative as "possibly a majority, judging by what I have seen in the past 20+ years".  So divisive could also work..

 

But The Voice is not divisive. What it is saying is that in matters relating to First Nations people, they should be consulted. What is divisive about that? Yes, I know there is no such guarantee for others, but are you seriously insinuating society has failed any other segment than First Nations so woefully, because they weren't consulted?

 

BTW, that is not to say that any legislation will work. Governments sadly have a strong track record in throwing money at a problem without a real plan on how to tackle the problem. They gloat, for example, "We have placed more money in the public health system than any other government", yet the waiting times are at record highs and staff morale is at an all time low.. (think NHS over here). 

 

21 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Any legal precedent that treats demographic groups differently, based on their race, is just like what caused all the aparthied problems.

 

I thought we were aiming for equality regardless of race?

We definitely are aiming for equality regardless of race. But I think, Aboriginal Land Rights notwithstanding, they are still a million miles from being treated equally. So, shouldn't we work hard to get them to the point where they are treated equally, have equal opportunity for what they want to achieve/ In the 80s to noughties, we had affirmative action for women and ethnic minorities. The government, with The Voice hasn't even gone to affirmative action. Levelling up is not aparthied, surely? And given that The Voice doesn't seem to guarantee anything but being consulted on matters affecting them, it would hardly be aparthied, would it?

 

21 hours ago, nomadpete said:

PS as regards 240 tribes coexisting, have you not heard about tribal battles (riots) in indigenous towns? And how educators, police and medical staff fear for their lives in many indigenous communities? These are people trying to work with the communities as much as those communities allow, which often isn't much.

 

The 20 tribes were before white fella. Most of them have died out and their culture/languages have gone with them. FWIW, indigenous towns/communities aren't the only ones police and other services run scared from. When I lived in Aus back in 2005, the police started playing lound classical music in the car park behind the Prahran Safeway to try and break up the louts and miscreants as the police, in the signage they put up to warn us residents, admitted they were too chicken to go in themselves. A mate was a casualty (A&E) doctor at the Alfred Hospital and reckoned it was rare they could count with their fingers/thumbs the amount of times each night security had to get involved. There have been rural nursed lost to white-fellas in rural communities (last one I heard of was about 3 or 4 years ago, admittedly). 

 

After all that I swayed away fro the point I was trying to make.. they behaviour may be problematic now, but such as mass of a segment of society means there is likely an intergenerational element that naturally persists between the generations. Kids to pick up a lot, including conditioning, from their parents.. At the moment, we are in vicious circle territory. It will take persistent resources to tackle and fix, and The Voice may be the start, but it is not, by itself going to fix it. And we can't work out if it is likely even to be the start because no-one knows what it really is. 

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

like a change imposed on them that they were not ready for,

My theory is this.....

For millennia, theindigenous had lived under a successful nomadic culture. They had a culture that obviously worked for them.

 

By nature, nomads live wherever food is easily available, and move on to greener pastures when it runs out. Otherwise they die. There is no sense of ownership and their temporary stay does not require cleaning up when they leave. Nature will provide at a new place. Nomads the world over do this.

 

Along comes the British with a new system to provide for their people. They live in permanent towns. By the nature of town living, white fellas have developed a culture of taking ownership of their towns, homes, etc. A sense of ownership carries a sense of responsibility for maintaining their towns and homes in livable condition, otherwise they die.

 

Now, viewed through the paradigm of a nomad, towns don't run dry so life is easy. There is no need to move on to find food. Over successive generations to varying degrees they abandon their old culture, and the structure of rules that had worked for thousands of years. Fragments of old get mishmashed with fragments of new. But ultimately, it is human nature to go with the easiest way out.

Their culture is not true to their traditional heritage, nor it it true to the present system.

 

IMPOSED by palefaces? I think not. It is the result of "free will". The bulk of indigenous simply decided it was easier to eat (unhealthy) immigrant food. I admit I am generalising. I admit that it is much harder for individuals to rise from abusive parenting, to break the cycle. (I grew up in a poor suburb where there was a lot of poor parenting, and not many of us rose out of slum mentality)

 

It would be the same sad outcome, had it been the Dutch, Portugese, or Russians that landed).

[old man emu]

I still think that one of the roots of the problem is a lack of meaningful employment. If you try to compare the employment potential in a remote community with that in a moderately-sized rural town and then with a metropolis, the differences are glaring. Oh! but what about work in the agricultural sector? The Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021 Census of Population and Housing (Census) indicates that the Australian agriculture sector employed 239,000 people in 2021, representing 2.2 per cent of all employed people in Australia, with the horticulture and broadacre (livestock and cropping) industries accounting for most workers (more than 75%).

 

Oversimplifying the numbers, that leaves 97.8% of a remote community to find employment elsewhere. About 2% of the Australian workforce in involved in mining. That leaves 95.8% of a remote community lacking employment opportunities. There are no markets for services, or manufacturing from the western bank of the Darling River to the Indian Ocean which generate the income to be spent on health and education. Stifle those two areas and no one, black; white, or brindle can uplift their living standards.

[Bruce Tuncks]

OME, if you had been born black I bet you would be very well-off now. Medicine was just one of the careers offered. I know of a fairly-black woman who is a career public servant on at least $260,000 pa.She was recruited to the executive grade. She is smart and good-looking and can actually hand in an assignment on time.

 

I am ( sort-of) related to a guy who was part aborigine himself who undertook to teach earthmover operation to aborigines  near Darwin. No, he doesn't look aboriginal but playing the card certainly got him a good job.

He got the sack because they all failed...  he said that they didn't try. He was not stupid, and could very easily have given them all passes and still been there.

 

My wife once sacked an ( small percent ) indigenous guy because he spent his working day watching porn, she is so non-racist that she thinks race doesn't matter at all. Some of those above her ( the truly racist ones) thought that of course you should expect that an aborigine could not work at the same level as a white person.

 

Once I was embarrassed on the Ghan train. As we left Alice Springs, we passed some aboriginal housing where the inhabitants were squatting in their yards, among years of rubbish. A Canadian elderly couple were shocked.

Personally, I reckon that we have failed to use "tough love" on them.  If they had to appear well dressed and clean to get their siddown money, they would do it easily.

[old man emu]

There are many individuals from all levels of Society who have done "very well" by the standards of European culture, which is the dominant culture in Australia. But those who have done "very well" are in fact the statistical outriders of the distribution curve, which for "well doneness" for Aboriginals has more individuals worse off than the whole population than it has better off. That is called a "left, or negative skew" . The term "mode" means the value that appears most often in a set of data values. Very roughly, the mode is the high point of the graph. "Mean" is just the average; simply add up all the values and divide by the number of values. The "median" if the value that 50% are bigger than and 50% are less than.

 

The illustrated skewed distribution is what you would expect of a distribution that has only a few extra numbers less than the mean. I would expect the distribution of "well doneness" to look like this:

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

quite right OME. I like this idea of the difference between average and median....  if one person has a million dollars and 9 have nothing, the average wealth is $100,000 but the median is zero.

[onetrack]

The reason why many Aboriginals can't get jobs is because; (A) Many have such inadequate education levels, they can barely sign their own name. But large numbers of them fail in the education system, they just don't want to learn how to speak and write English properly. If they can't do this, then they will fail in job applications every time.

 

(B) Many have no work ethic. I've employed Aboriginals. Often, they would go great in the first week or two, then they'd hit the booze, or get into a fight, and fail to turn up for work for 2 or 3 days - or more. They are largely, simply unreliable employees. In job situations where the Govt is picking up the tab, or where there's an excess level of employees, this works just fine for them.

 

In the early to mid 1900's, the Cattle stations used to let the tribes live and hunt on the stations, and give work to those tribal members who felt like working. The station owners might get 5 cattle hands out of a tribe of 50 that wanted to work. But even then, those 5 would largely be unreliable - they'd suddenly want to "go walkabout" - that peculiarly Aboriginal trait, where they just chuck in the job at hand, to go hunting or just lay around, because they didn't feel like working. It's a cultural, and possibly even a genetic thing.

We do have a number of whites who could fall into the same category, but overall, they probably make up less than 6-8% of whites. The Aboriginals have no concept of time, and rarely can even guess at the hour, and personal responsibility is lacking in them, because it was never needed in the nomadic lifestyle they led, before the Europeans arrived.

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by onetrack

[old man emu]

I couldn't find a diagram of a greatly skewed distribution to illustrate my idea of the distribution of "well doneness". Then I remembered what the diagram of an engine's power output looks like. If you change to label "power" to well doneness, and the other one to number of persons who have done well, you will get an impression of the point I wanted to make.

 

[red750]

 The socalled purpose of this "question" is to provide democratic representation for the aboriginal tribes. The "Voice" will comprise 25 members to represent more than 100 tribes. So some will have a louder voice than others. The members are to be "appointed" (albeit with advice from the tribes), not "elected". Democratic? 

 

The Voice representatives:

 

ACT:  1 for every 4,772

Torres Strait Islanders: 1 for every 11,378

NT: 1 for every 25,578

QLD: 1 for every 91,074

NSW: 1 for every 113,182

 

This is "democratic representation"? By what definition?

[Bruce Tuncks]

I hope it ( the referendum ) fails. I agree with onetracks assessment, he obviously has first-hand knowledge. Mine is more second-hand, but I did grow up with lots of dark-skinned kids. I liked them and their culture is not without some good things....  they are very tolerant, for example, especially to those who don't want to work

Democracy, like work,  is to the aborigines a completely foreign concept. They have never had it in tribal life and they don't want it now.

What to do?  I wish I had a good idea. There is nothing you can do to them to make them work, well I guess this saved them from being slaves.

But to us, work is what we do to produce the goods we like to consume . So what to do with a whole group of people who refuse to work? Buggered if I know.

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, red750 said:

 The socalled purpose of this "question" is to provide democratic representation for the aboriginal tribes. The "Voice" will comprise 25 members to represent more than 100 tribes. So some will have a louder voice than others. The members are to be "appointed" (albeit with advice from the tribes), not "elected". Democratic? 

 

The Voice representatives:

 

ACT:  1 for every 4,772

Torres Strait Islanders: 1 for every 11,378

NT: 1 for every 25,578

QLD: 1 for every 91,074

NSW: 1 for every 113,182

 

This is "democratic representation"? By what definition?

Seems about the same as normal federal democracy.. Note the states that don't get a say 😉

 

[red750]

I received this in an email and post it as received. Email starts here:-

 

 

Well worth considering when the time comes to vote. This puts a true perspective on the whole question. 

 

The following article is by Steven Tripp, Spectator Australia, 13 December 2022

 

Recently, I sat down to interview an Aboriginal Elder from South Australia for the ExCandidates podcast, of which I am a host.  Her name is Kerry White, a former nurse and diabetes educator from the Narungga people.  The aim of the interview was to determine her views regarding the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

 

 It was a fascinating interview because it completely deconstructed many fundamental aspects of the current ‘narrative’ surrounding the Aboriginal people.  Say ‘Aboriginal’ because even during the pre-interview phone call I had with Kerry, I made the mistake of using the term ‘Indigenous’.  With no hint of hesitation, Kerry quickly corrected my error and informed me that Aboriginal people prefer to be called Aborigines.

 

 I asked her to expand on this during the interview.  Kerry explained that Indigenous were ‘…anyone native to Australia including flora and fauna.  If you’re born in Australia, you’re Indigenous.’

 ‘The other term that they use for us is First Nations,’ Kerry went on to say.  ‘First Nations – that’s Canadian.  We are not Canadian.  We are Aboriginal.  We are from Australia and the Torres Strait.’

 Why did we move away from the term Aborigines in the first place?  Was it a fear of political correctness?  Obviously, we were not listening to Elders such as Kerry White.  Instead, we have chosen to listen to Woke activists, university lecturers, and inner city elites.

 

 Kerry then went on to explain the divide between Aboriginal ‘mobs’ in rural/remote areas, compared to mobs in city areas.  ‘When it comes to Aboriginal people, we have two separate lots,’ she began, educating us again.  ‘We have a lot of Aboriginal mobs.  Not tribes, not clans.  Mobs.  That’s an Aboriginal term.  The mobs are divided into two.  And that is rural and remote, and that is separate from the city-ites.’

 Could this explain the clear difference in message between Senators Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Lidia Thorpe, who grew up in Alice Springs and Melbourne respectively ?

 How will an Indigenous Voice to Parliament adequately represent the concerns of this divide?

 Kerry went on to teach us another Aboriginal term – ‘tick-a-boxers’.  These represented the people who claimed to be Aboriginal when it is clear they are not.  Recent census data points to this.

 Since the 1971 census, the number of people identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander has risen from 116,000 to over 800,000 – a 590 per cent increase.

 

 Even from 2016 to 2021, the national population increased by 8 per cent, but the Indigenous population increased by 23 per cent.

 

 ‘There should be some form of identification.  Proof that these people claiming to be Aboriginal are actually Aboriginal,’ Kerry began, before recalling how almost twenty years ago, the government scrapped the need for someone to obtain proof that they were Aboriginal.

 

 ‘So, if you want to be Aboriginal, all you had to do is tick the box.’

 

 Kerry pointed out that the word Indigenous is included in the official wording of the proposal – the ‘Indigenous Voice to Parliament’.  Therefore, one wonders, would simply ‘ticking a box’ to indicate you were Indigenous suffice to be recognised by the new body?  What can of worms would that unleash?

 It must be frustrating for an Elder like Kerry.  How many times have true Aboriginal Elders been asked to comment or contribute to the debate on The Voice?  According to Kerry, it is yet to happen for anyone in her community.

 

 For Kerry, her feelings on the Voice to Parliament are clear.

 

 ‘It’s a no from me.  I say no to The Voice.  I don’t want it,’ she replied pointedly.  ‘We, the Aboriginal people from rural and remote Australia do not want it.

 

 ‘A bit over two hundred years ago, they rounded Aboriginal people up and locked them on missions.  So Aboriginal people were segregated from White society.  Then we come forward to now – “The Voice” – and they’re segregating us again.  They’re taking us back two hundred years.  ‘You’re dividing the country again, it’s back to segregation.  And frankly, it’s racist towards our White brothers and sisters that live in this land with us.’

 

 Furthermore, Kerry makes the argument that Aborigines are already over-represented in Parliament, thus nullifying the need for a new body such as the Voice.  ‘We have eleven Aboriginal members in Parliament, in the Upper and Lower house.’ Kerry begins.  ‘That equates to 4.9 per cent representation, Aboriginal representation in Parliament.  For 3.2 per cent of the population.  With that, we actually have over-representation in Parliament.  So why would we need a Voice?  Unless they’re saying that our Parliamentary members are not doing their job.’

 

 Does Kerry reflect the thoughts and feelings of all Aboriginal people?  Should her statements and explanations concerning Aboriginal people be taken as gospel?  Of course not.  But that is the point.  Can a ‘Voice’ to Parliament represent all the varying ‘voices’ of Aboriginal Australia?

 

 More importantly, is the debate on the Voice taking the focus off the true needs of Aboriginal people?  As a nurse, Kerry is well-versed in the issues facing Aboriginal people, especially in remote communities.  ‘With Aboriginal people, it’s mostly linked to diabetes.  We have a high rate of diabetes amongst Aboriginal people.’ Kerry explains.

 

 ‘Heart problems.  That began to rise about fifteen years ago.  They don’t have access to medical care out there.  They don’t have health centres and doctors and all that.  They don’t have it.  They’ve got to travel sometimes 3-4 hours to get to a doctor, or medical treatment if something should happen out there.’  Kerry White joins Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, along with Senator Pauline Hanson of One Nation, in speaking out against the Voice to Parliament.  Their message also stresses the need to unify the Nation, not to divide it along the lines of race.  You would think that a study of history would compel anyone to agree.

 

 We already have Parliaments at local, state, and federal levels the attempt to address all the ‘voices’ of society.

 

 According to Kerry White, Senator Price, and surely many other Aboriginal people, this is the way it should remain.

 

 For me, the lesson was that it is always best to go straight to the source and avoid the mainstream ‘narrative’.

 

 

[facthunter]

Why do you mention Pauleen Hansons view on this matter? It doesn't add credibility. to any case affecting non whites.  Nev

[red750]

I didn't mention anything. That is a straight copy and paste of the email.Just like I forwarded it to you if I had your email address.

[facthunter]

Ok that's fine  but my comment is still valid. Pauline has always played the race card. She just changes which race as time moves on and other opportunities present them selves. Thanx for your reply. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

The Spectator is not a journal that I would treat as balanced - it is very right wing leaning (at least over here. 

 

And, yes, within a racial group, you will always find someone who is contrary to what common held opinions are. After all, the leader of the Proud Boys is Hispanic, but one would hardle align the Proud Boys reason for existence as being compatible with the Hispanic society.

 

But, I would like to hear what other elders, from both the bush and the big smoke have to say and see what the consensus is. 

 

Although, I still have to say, we don't need proposed legislation, but some detail on the model that will be adopted I think is necessary. 

 

And, I respect the opinion that we don't want something that drives a racial tension wedge deeper into society... The road to hell is paved with good intentions.. And while the Aboriginals have definitely been the most marginalised race in Australia over the journey, it is more important that at least there is scrutiny about how well the Voice will go to fix that.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I quite like how anybody can legally tick a box and become aboriginal. Reckon I'll do that myself. I have a dreaming about Alice Springs in the 1950's.  

[willedoo]

4 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I quite like how anybody can legally tick a box and become aboriginal. Reckon I'll do that myself. I have a dreaming about Alice Springs in the 1950's.  

Bruce, I hope they're not bad dreams. It's a beautiful town and area, but the crime would wear people down. It was interesting listening to business owners being interviewed on the radio a couple of days ago. They were saying the crime rate has increased significantly in the last six months. It must be bad, as it was bad enough in town when I last worked there around 2010-2011.

 

We had a base for a while just out of town on the Stuart highway, not far from the prison. We used it as a town base while we did work out at Kintore, and in the Simpson, east of Old Andado. We also did a bit of work out near the Mereenie gas plant.

[nomadpete]

Would the proposed 'voice' have any effect upon crime in aboriginal communities? If so, how?

 

Would the 'voice' change the argument about intervention in these communities?

 

I hear loud grumblings from some aboriginal spokespersons, claiming that interventions aimed at reducing alcohol abuse, are racially discriminating. Equally, in the past I heard some who said it did a lot to make women and children safer. I feel the interventions were introduced because of the failure of the communities to manage their culture of dangerous living.

Would the 'voice' bring unity and harmony to these disparate people?

 

If no, there is nothing to be gained by adding a special parliamentary advisory committee (besides, it only represents one minority group of Australians)

[rgmwa]

I suspect the referendum may get over the line, mainly because most people are likely to feel that some acknowledgement of the fact that the Aborigines were here first should be formally recognised in the Constitution, even if they have no idea what the Voice is about or how it's going to work (or more likely not). What makes it even more confusing is the obvious disagreement between different Aboriginal individuals about whether they even want a Voice, and the persistent talk about a Treaty of some sort. However despite their justified confusion, most people are likely to think that doing something is better than doing nothing and vote yes.

Edited January 27, 2023 by rgmwa

[pmccarthy]

It hasn't a hope. But I said that about Dan Andrews.

[red750]

I can't get over that aboriginal (looked white) female cricketer, complaining about playing on Australia Day (oops, 26th January). If it wasn't for the white "invaders", she wouldn't be playing cricket. The white people brought the game to Australia.