Albo's question

[octave]

12 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Octave, a big downside is that the "voice" will detract from any real effort to help the aborigines.

 

That is a big supposition on your part,   It is not a question of  either more policing or more consulting they are not mutually exclusive.   Measures such as alcohol bans will always work better when instituted by or at least in consultation with the people it affects.  

 

 

3 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Just maybe, the "voice" could be tasked with coming up with solutions for juvenile crime and women-bashing.

If so, that could be just the thing needed to put some backbone into the government.

It is the difference between the government stepping in unilaterally and banning alcohol and the people lobbying the government to ban alcohol.  The former gives the impression of the folks in Canberra  telling the people what to do but in the second case the Government could be seen as more of a tool for the people to achieve the same result.  

 

I respect your right to vote no and I am sure you respect my right to vote yes. I can assure you that I don't come to my opinion lightly.  

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Surely we don't need to change the constitution to have a response to the questions about crime and bashings?

Just who you ask would influence your answer of course. Personally, I would have a consultation committee of black grannies who had lived in the outback.

[old man emu]

Maybe if those of us, who have a modicum of respect for the rights of us all to involvement in solving societal problems, started yelling at governments - State and Federal - to do what their successful Big Business contributors do and delegate minor functions to the lowest practicable level to make decisions applicable to local areas.

 

I grew up on Gwaigal country, clan lands of the D'harawal people of the Illawarra Coast. Although I doubt that after 235 years' contact with non-Aborigines any Gwaigal still remain traditopnal,  they are fully integrated into the existing non-Aboriginal society. I doubt that any ethnically-aimed restrictive practices are required there. However, go west 30 kms and you are in Campbelltown and its suburbs where social housing estates have harboured the lowest socio-economic levels for over 50 years. Alcohol and drug abuse are rampant. Alcohol-free zones have had to be established there for the very same reasons that are the root of the problems in the Alice, and by the very same authorities without giving thought to the root causes of the symptoms.

[nomadpete]

13 hours ago, octave said:

voting yes but perhaps some one will  put forward a persuasive rational argument.  I am most interested in hearing about the downsides. 

I agree with most of your views on this except for one thing.

 

I hesitate to encourage new changes simply because 'I can't see it doing any harm'.

 

There is a very real cultural problem that is causing misery and harm to many Australians ( of all Australian backgrounds)

 

And rearranging deckchairs at the top won't improve things at the bottom. It only is a feelgood frill.

 

The downside I see, is that I cannot see an upside in the proposed change

[facthunter]

  IF the Aborigines have ownership of the rep. group they would have to get more involved with all sorts of problems. . It wouldn't be considered a whitefella's fix. Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

A few things said here that are just incorrect...

1. "The aborigines lived happily before whites arrived" ...  the opposite is more true.

2. They are the "first Nation people". This is just nonsense...  they were a bunch of mutually killing tribes. They would have been inbred except for the practice of herding your women over to the other ( stronger) group. If they were killed, you had to fight. If they were just raped, everybody continued. When whites arrived, they were generally hated less than the surrounding tribes.

3. They took "care of the land"...  if fact, they gave zero thought to the land in the care sense. Poisoning waterholes in the desert is an example.

4. Their current problems are the result of white people interfering with an idyllic system....   nonsense, says me. If the whites never came here, the tribes would still be living in misery. If some other lot, like the spanish, had colonised, there would be many fewer alive today. The English were by far the most civilized of the colonial powers, not that they were very good by our standards today.

[facthunter]

It's hard to sell the line "you were lucky to get us as conquerors" because we are the Best. Britain has fought with more countries than any other and it was never to improve anything but serve the intended Purpose. In this case as a place to assign Felons to forever ,so neither THEY or the existing people were thought of much, till the place became attractive for a few reasons. The tribes were not united in any way so they didn't have any organised resistance it seems. Many of the languages don't work with others who are even quite close geographically.  Nev

[Old Koreelah]

On 8/12/2022 at 11:32 AM, nomadpete said:

…For instance, magine the outcry if we changed the constitution to allow the mining industry or a church group to have their own special official "voice" to represent their interests...

Good grief, that’s a very poor argument!

The mining industry and churches have always had enormous influence over governments.

[facthunter]

When we have the best Pollies  money can buy and then they buy votes by not taxing Churches no matter how SUSS some of them are..  Nev

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

The English were by far the most civilized of the colonial powers, not that they were very good by our standards today.

At the time the numbers of British were arriving in Australia, social concepts were in the early stages of change - especially those relating to the enslavement of native peoples. Here  is part of the Instructions Phillip was given before leaving to establish the colony on how he was to act towards the natives.

It is a shame that Invasion Day advocates don't read these instructions. In fact who of us have? There is a good reason - the instructions were lost. But a draft copy has been located in the British records so we can now see what exactly King George III wanted. (I know - it was the British Parliament who wanted a solution to the loss of the Americas).

 

There are some interesting tidbits in the instructions. Phillip only had to deal with the continent from the Northern Cape or Extremity of the Coast called Cape York in the Latitude of Ten Degrees thirty seven Minutes south, to the Southern Extremity of the said Territory of New South Wales, or South Cape, in the Latitude of Forty three Degrees Thirty nine Minutes south, and of all the Country Inland to the Westward as far as the One hundred and Thirty fifth Degree of East Longitude, reckoning from the Meridian of Greenwich including all the Islands adjacent in the Pacific - Ocean within the Latitudes aforesaid of 10 º 37' South, and 43º 39' South.

 

Have a read for yourself and correct the misinformation you have been taught. https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-35.html

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

  IF the Aborigines have ownership of the rep. group they would have to get more involved with all sorts of problems. . It wouldn't be considered a whitefella's fix. Nev

Great in theory.

However, although I have an elected representative in parliament, I don't feel particularly involved nor empowered (apart from writing an occassional letter to my MP, & I don't see that having any affect on the big picture)

 

So why would aborigines suddenly start to get more involved, just because they have a theoretical voice?

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said:

mining industry and churches have always had enormous influence over governments.

Sure. Those industries were smart enough to find more efficient ways to get better outcomes from our governments. And they clearly show that lobby groups have more power than legislation or constitution.

 

My point was, that there should be an outcry over any minority group being given special treatment that cannot be shown to solve the endemic problems that group face.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by nomadpete

[Bruce Tuncks]

It is not really my problem to stick up for the poms. I am only alive because the Australian parliament , after Breaker Morant, stopped allowing the poms to kill australian troops.

BUT, they were about  the first country to abolish slavery ( the last was only in 1981 , it was a black african country.) Not only did they abolish it only for themselves, they spent some time persuading others to do the same.

Once, I read the instructions for forming the colony of South Australia. They included the injunction to NOT despoil the natives, who are equal subjects of the king. So any murders ( which are not denied ) were done illegally.

As a kid in Alice Springs in the 1950's, I had black friends and none of us had ever heard of the stolen generation. Now there would have been, maybe in qld, towns with racist and zealous cops, so some of the stories might be true. All I know for sure is that there were none where I was. ( I would not have included a baby who was neglected and taken to hospital, but I was not privy to that either).

Alice Springs in the 1950's was like a small town anywhere. We never had any locks on the doors....   a far cry from what it is now huh.

 

For an update on aboriginal advantage, just look at the population who claim aboriginality....  it is exploding. And no wonder, if you want to get advantaged in life, it sure helps if you can claim to be aboriginal.

 

[octave]

29 minutes ago, old man emu said:

It is a shame that Invasion Day advocates don't read these instructions. In fact who of us have? There is a good reason

I guess the question would be, were these instructions carried out?     I say this as  someone who was born in Britain. The British Empire was not built on travelling to foreign and spreading sunshine and happiness to the local inhabitants whether it be India or Australia etc.   Countries other than Britain also tended to exploit the lands that they "discovered"    The whole purpose of empire building was to exploit resources and often the local inhabitants.    

 

Our history is mixed, we should not ignore the bad things that have happened in our history and we should also not dwell solely on the bad.   

 

When Australia was settled by the British the local inhabitants way of living was impacted.  We can talk about what we think the average life of an indigenous person was (although it is easy to slant the evidence either way to suit an argument), but we do know that the life of the average British person was not fantastic given poverty disease and children working down mines etc. 

 

When I was at school I was only taught about heroic men exploring and settling.  It was only later that I learnt of places such as Moore River native settlement. 

 

4 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

They included the injunction to NOT despoil the natives, who are equal subjects of the king.

Whilst perhaps the intention was for them to be equal subject the reality was somewhat different

 

 

"For much of Australia’s political history, tens of thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people couldn’t vote in state or federal elections. In 1962 the Australian Parliament passed a landmark Act to give all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the option to enrol and vote in federal elections. But it was not until 1984 that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were finally treated like other voters and required to enrol and vote in elections."

 

12 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

For an update on aboriginal advantage, just look at the population who claim aboriginality.... 

 

What are the figures or is this an anecdote?

 

 

Recognizing indigenous people in the constitution does not impede other strategies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Alas, Octave, it is very true. The raw figures are that the numbers of people claiming aboriginality have increased ( 19% in a 5 year period, twice the population rate growth ).

It is not hard to see why....  1. Employers get $10,000 subsidy for employing you.

                                               2. there are lots of very highly paid specific jobs

                                               3. There are indigenous-specific scholarships

                                              4. the social services are better and there are indigenous-specific extras like mining royalties added. As I have said before, $5000 cheques are the go for aboriginal families on welfare. Their malnutrition is actually called " affluent malnutrition."

The group of people who are cashing in on this stuff are called "box tickers" and despised  by those who can point to a genuine ancestor. I have heard  of a mainly-white person pretending that they were not aboriginal at all, but this was a long time ago. Nowadays, the opposite is the case. Remember the first " aboriginal " to graduate medicine in WA? She was a blonde white woman who had been briefly fostered by a part-aboriginal family. Now she is on a million a year, and it was probably her clever manipulation of the system which got her there.

Please look up the figures which will show how claiming aboriginal status is a cash cow.

[octave]

7 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

1. Employers get $10,000 subsidy for employing you.

 

I approve of this, however if the bar is set to low then that is something that should be changed.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

2. there are lots of very highly paid specific jobs

This is a vague claim, I am not dismissing it but I would be interested to know more about this. My first question would be that if it is so easy to get a high paying job then why aren't there more high income indigenous folk around?  

 

13 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

3. There are indigenous-specific scholarships

 I am OK with that.   Whilst you could say that it is unfair, I would say that in order to reduce the problem giving advantage to a disadvantaged group temporarily is  not a bad tactic.  Most of us do not commit crimes because of what we have to lose. Our nice house and car, our well paying job etc.    The section of the indigenous community committing  crimes are people with nothing to lose.  If a homeless person (of any ethnicity) gets an advantage into a job or housing then I as a successful middle class person am not going to whinge and say it is unfair.

 

20 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

the social services are better and there are indigenous-specific extras like mining royalties added. As I have said before, $5000 cheques are the go for aboriginal families on welfare.

Social services are something solid that can be confirmed. I recently argued with someone on the net about Centrelink benefits for refugees. This person quoted some huge fortnightly payment which I spent a long time successfully disproving. I am not say that there are not special payments for indigenous people in fact I could look it up now.  Looking at a list of payments most of them seem to be related to study costs for remote are students. By the way any payments  from native title claims or indigenous title claims etc are counted against ABSTUDY as are royalties, sale of arts profits and gate takings from national parks.   I am not saying that there are no Aboriginal Centrelink payments but most of them seem to be in line with payments made to other people in remote areas.

As far as $5000 cheques go, I am not sure what the source of these cheques is (are cheques even used these days) then this is not on top of welfares but this would count as income  Income specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians If people are not declaring income such as royalties then that is a crime and if you have proof that they are double dipping then you should report them.

 

39 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Please look up the figures which will show how claiming aboriginal status is a cash cow.

 

I have spent about 6 hours today reading all sorts of info, you cant accuse me of not putting the time in. As you have clearly looked at the figures, why not make it easy for me and post the links.  

 

All of this in my opinion does not progress the argument for a no vote.    Your against the "voice" argument"  seem to be that it wont vastly improve the situation. (this could be true) If we recognize indigenous people in the constitution and institute a  constitutionally defined group of elected advisors then suddenly we wont be able to institute other measures (doesn't seem logical to me) Most of your argument seems to be that Aboriginal people were bad before white folks arrive and are still bad.  Even if this generalization were  true the question is what would you do about it if you had the power? 

[Old Koreelah]

4 hours ago, nomadpete said:

…My point was, that there should be an outcry over any minority group being given special treatment that cannot be shown to solve the endemic problems that group face.

Our First People are NOT just another minority group; they were here FIRST.

They are the people who were pushed aside to allow our nation to be built.

 

Despite the appallingly things done to them, most have shown commendable hospitality to the newcomers. Like many of my countrymen, I’m happy to see Aboriginal Australians given a smidgeon of special treatment; seeing their red, yellow and black flag flying makes me proud of of my country.

 

 

 

 

[nomadpete]

According to the numbers, back in 1788 the poms were certainly a minority group in Sydney cove.

 

In 2023, there are probably a much much smaller percentage of full blood aboriginals, than of invaders (or migrants, whatever the rest are called).

That seems to mean that the aboriginal population represents a minority of the Australian population?

 

And, by the way, if you want to feel marginalised, vulnerable, try getting attacked by belligerant abusive aboriginals, they are often more than just frightening in many a remote town.

Sure I have known many friendly ones. But a lot are plain dangerous, and a voice in parliament is too far removed from their daily life to have any positive influence on them

Edited January 29, 2023 by nomadpete

[rgmwa]

9 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

The group of people who are cashing in on this stuff are called "box tickers" and despised  by those who can point to a genuine ancestor. I have heard  of a mainly-white person pretending that they were not aboriginal at all, but this was a long time ago. Nowadays, the opposite is the case. Remember the first " aboriginal " to graduate medicine in WA? She was a blonde white woman who had been briefly fostered by a part-aboriginal family. Now she is on a million a year, and it was probably her clever manipulation of the system which got her there.

Please look up the figures which will show how claiming aboriginal status is a cash cow.

She's Professor Helen Milroy, who was born in Perth, graduated as a doctor in 1983 and traces her ancestral lineage to the Palyku people of the Pilbara Region. I've got no idea whether she meets the current three-part definition of an Aboriginal, but I found this Australian Law Reform Commission extract interesting given the number of people apparently claiming they are Aboriginal.  

 

Legal definitions of Aboriginality

Early definitions

36.11 The legal historian, John McCorquodale, has reported that since the time of white settlement, governments have used no less than 67 classifications, descriptions or definitions to determine who is an Aboriginal person.^[9]

36.12 The ALRC discussed the definition of an ‘Aborigine’ in its 1986 report, The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws.^[10] The ALRC noted that early attempts at a definition tended to concentrate on descent, without referring to other elements of Aboriginality. Problems arose in deciding whether descendants of unions between Aborigines and settlers were to be regarded as Aboriginal for the purposes of various restrictive or discriminatory laws (for example, disentitling Aborigines from voting or enrolling to vote). In applying these restrictive laws, tests based on ‘quantum of blood’ were commonly applied.^[11]

36.13 The Commonwealth Parliament obtained the power to legislate with respect to people of ‘the aboriginal race in any State’ in the 1967 referendum. The Commonwealth subsequently enacted a number of statutes for the purpose of providing certain rights and privileges for the exclusive benefit of Indigenous Australians.^[12] These statutes have generally defined an Aboriginal or Indigenous person as ‘a person who is a descendant of an indigenous inhabitant of Australia’,^[13] or a member or a person ‘of the Aboriginal race of Australia’.^[14] One commentator has observed in relation to the latter definition:

Though possibly an improvement on ‘blood’ quantum definitions, the utility of this definition can still be questioned, not least of all on the grounds that there is no such thing as an Aboriginal race. Most scientists long ago stopped using the word ‘race’.^[15]

The three-part definition

36.14 In the early 1980s, the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs proposed a new three-part definition of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person.

An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he [or she] lives.^[16]

36.15 Federal government departments adopted the definition as their ‘working definition’ for determining eligibility to certain services and benefits. The definition continues to be applied administratively in relation to programs such as Abstudy funding for tertiary students.

[onetrack]

The concept of Aboriginality as "acceptance by the community in which he/she lives" would have to rate as the ultimate in rubbery, un-measureable definitions.

 

How is community "acceptance" defined? Simply by not getting stoned daily (as in, stones thrown at you)?

 

I know of a bloke of direct Slavic ancestry who ticked the box for "identifies as Aboriginal" simply to gain a hunting or fishing advantage for restricted species, which hunting/fishing allowance was denied to whites. Nobody has ever queried his position, nor has he ever had to meet any "Aboriginal" measurement criteria.

 

This "Aboriginal customs" entitlement has been abused so much, the W.A. Govt has had to initiate a policy of dealing with "Aboriginal customs fishing". The Aboriginals themselves claim to be "custodians of the land (and by extrapolation, the seas and waters, I guess) - but they generally care little about obeying catch restrictions that apply to many endangered or restricted species, and are happy to blame whites for the severe reduction in endangered or restricted species.

 

The "customary fishing" regulations were introduced to try and ensure that catch restrictions still apply, without stopping the Aboriginal "right to fish". However, that still gives them an advantage over whites when it comes to fishing many species.

 

https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Fishing-and-Aquaculture/Customary-Fishing/Pages/Customary-Fishing-FAQ.aspx

[rgmwa]

2 minutes ago, onetrack said:

The concept of Aboriginality as "acceptance by the community in which he/she lives" would have to rate as the ultimate in rubbery, un-measureable definitions.

 

How is community "acceptance" defined? Simply by not getting stoned daily (as in, stones thrown at you)?

 

Agreed. In the context of a person born and living in Perth but descended (in part, presumably) from a tribe in the Pilbara, how could you claim that you are accepted by the (Aboriginal) community in which you live, when they don't live where you do.  Even if you did live in the community, what are the standards for demonstrating `acceptance'.  Do you need to a majority of the elders to sign off in some way?  

[old man emu]

I hear now that a group of prominent, well respected (in White society), Aboriginal people are launching a "NO" campaign. You would call these people "well-educated", meaning quite on top of European laws and practice. So if they are going against a "YES" vote, my only interpretation is that there is something wrong with the practicality of the concept, not necessarily the concept itself.

[octave]

1 minute ago, old man emu said:

I hear now that a group of prominent, well respected (in White society), Aboriginal people are launching a "NO" campaign. You would call these people "well-educated", meaning quite on top of European laws and practice. So if they are going against a "YES" vote, my only interpretation is that there is something wrong with the practicality of the concept, not necessarily the concept itself.

 I heard the an interview with Warren Mundine today regarding his support for a no vote.  I found it hard to discern exactly why he is against the "voice" however I would suggest that many of those people who oppose the voice might be not so happy about what he is proposing.

 

• Voice to Parliament opponents have called for constitutional recognition of migrants to Australia.
• He said while Indigenous people should be recognised in the constitution, other groups should have the same opportunity.

"Leading advocates against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament have called for constitutional recognition of migrants to Australia alongside Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
 

As the group leading the "no" vote unveiled its campaign, Recognise A Better Way, organiser Warren Mundine said the group would advocate for broader recognition in the constitution for Indigenous people.
 

However, that recognition would not mean an enshrined Indigenous Voice to parliament."

 

[facthunter]

The Greens have decided to back it and allow Thorpe her own vote as she's very vocal about other priorities. I must confess I find her view on many things hard to follow the logic of. Surely the premature STAND of the NP and Litteproud to go so hard so soon in the piece and not allow the toing and froing to be taken account of is staged. It's a long time till the Decision has to be made and some NATS have indicated they will vote for it.  I would see Hanson opposing it  as predictable and would be alarmed  and amazed IF SHE did agree to it.  You would want to know what unified this particular group AT THIS PARTICULAR time also. Nev

[facthunter]

  Warren Mundine is ALL OVER the PLACE particularly since HE married GERARD HENDERSON"S Daughter.   Henderson is very  anti Labor / weird Howard worshipping side of things as best I can describe it. He used to be a frequent commentator on the Insiders show where he was suitably irrelevant to be  unable to be have his views taken seriously by  anyone. and hasn't been there in a long time, thankfully.  Nev

Edited January 30, 2023 by facthunter