Australia can't believe they voted No

When I was in Oz, a lot of them seemed very bitter toward the amount of benefits and government grants the Aboriginals got. Lots of Aboriginals didn't work but still lived a comfortable lifestyle due to the extras indigenous people got for nowt. When I say bitter, I mean seething.
 
Gains said:
When I was in Oz, a lot of them seemed very bitter toward the amount of benefits and government grants the Aboriginals got. Lots of Aboriginals didn't work but still lived a comfortable lifestyle due to the extras indigenous people got for nowt. When I say bitter, I mean seething.
Click to expand...
Similar to all the selfish people In the Pub. Say immigrants get more than our own people but the same ones would stop benefits to our own at the drop of a hat. They think they are lazy bone idle good for nothings. As opposed to selfish c-word like them
 
Last edited:
asredastheycome said:
Si

Similar to all the selfish people In the Pub. Say immigrants get more than our own people but the same ones would stop benefits to our own at the drop of a hat. They think they are lazy bone idle good for nothings. As opposed to selfish c-word like them
Click to expand...
That’s the thick electorate of England and seems like they have a similar strong number of them in Australia which is a very right wing governed country that was put in by the people 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
 
This one is far more complex than a simple yes or no could resolve or explain. The article makes it sound simple. I voted Yes but with mixed feelings, Warren Mundine who is mentioned in the article as a leading 'No' leader is a passionate aboriginal man and was against it as other key leaders were, some thought it should be regional not central, some though these committees had failed in the past and been disbanded so useless, some thought it didn't go far enough etc etc.
There is bi-partisan support and no issue to anyone with recognising First Nations people in the constitution, that would have been easily done, Australia is no more racist than Britain or any other country and this is a non issue as everyone here believes jumping on that bandwagon. However this recognition proposal was tied into the set up of a new permanent body (The Voice) which would advise govt on policies & this was the tricky bit for many (most) for a variety of reasons.
Some felt it was extra bureaucracy when state & federal govt bodies exist already, some felt the existing parliamentary system should work harder not be circumvented, there was no detail on it's make up or who would be elected into it, there is no one aboriginal group - there are many with different languages, cultures, needs eg: city v country v remote etc so who was it for, some felt it could cause issues and a focal point for conflict and division if its advice was ignored or rejected by the normal workings of parliament, many immigrant populations (from all over the disadvantaged world) felt they had done it tough and lifted themselves up so why can't they, others felt the issues of disadvantage for remote communities are well known already so why is a special committee going to come up with anything new.
I don't think it was a rejection of aboriginal people or their issues, it was a rejection of a particular mechanism and the complexities of a difficult problem. As I say I voted yes as I thought it was the right thing to do but still thought the Voice component was going to be problematic and not solve anything.
BTW Australia has a Labour (Labor) govt and all the key State govt's are Labor.
 
Boro said:
This one is far more complex than a simple yes or no could resolve or explain. The article makes it sound simple. I voted Yes but with mixed feelings, Warren Mundine who is mentioned in the article as a leading 'No' leader is a passionate aboriginal man and was against it as other key leaders were, some thought it should be regional not central, some though these committees had failed in the past and been disbanded so useless, some thought it didn't go far enough etc etc.
There is bi-partisan support and no issue to anyone with recognising First Nations people in the constitution, that would have been easily done, Australia is no more racist than Britain or any other country and this is a non issue as everyone here believes jumping on that bandwagon. However this recognition proposal was tied into the set up of a new permanent body (The Voice) which would advise govt on policies & this was the tricky bit for many (most) for a variety of reasons.
Some felt it was extra bureaucracy when state & federal govt bodies exist already, some felt the existing parliamentary system should work harder not be circumvented, there was no detail on it's make up or who would be elected into it, there is no one aboriginal group - there are many with different languages, cultures, needs eg: city v country v remote etc so who was it for, some felt it could cause issues and a focal point for conflict and division if its advice was ignored or rejected by the normal workings of parliament, many immigrant populations (from all over the disadvantaged world) felt they had done it tough and lifted themselves up so why can't they, others felt the issues of disadvantage for remote communities are well known already so why is a special committee going to come up with anything new.
I don't think it was a rejection of aboriginal people or their issues, it was a rejection of a particular mechanism and the complexities of a difficult problem. As I say I voted yes as I thought it was the right thing to do but still thought the Voice component was going to be problematic and not solve anything.
BTW Australia has a Labour (Labor) govt and all the key State govt's are Labor.
Click to expand...
This is often the conundrum with proposals trying to promote positive change. I don't know enough about it, but from what you've said sounds like lots of issues with it, but probably better than standing still and doing nothing.

Whether right or wrong to do so in this instance, I do think it's easy to fall into the trap of rejecting change because it's not perfect, rather than compromising and then ending up with no progress at all (and of course it also allows those opposed to now spin the narrative that the public agree nothing at all needs to be done).

Voltaire's "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" springs to mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top