Re; Posted by the usual suspect, Sunday, March 27, 2005 12:29:59 PM

Remarkable that despite being a journalist, voting for a Republic, being Aboriginal, majoring in politics, etc, you simply do not seem to be aware that Aboriginals are no longer Australian citizens, as I have set out in my book INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP!

Perhaps, with your education, you could put it to good use and really expose the rot that is going on?

However, if you voted for a Republic, I doubt you really understand what it is about, regardless of your education.
And, those voting against a Republic also would not know what they were voting for.

When we have judges in the High Court of Australia who do not even understand, let alone comprehend, the difference between Australian citizenship and Australian nationality then perhaps you may seek comfort in that, albeit it is hardly any excuse.

At 24, you have ample of time to learn about it all, just try to deal with it before you cast a vote! After all, you do not want to end up voting for a party that robs you of your constitutional rights? Then again, they all do!

Molly, Morgan, Chek,

This is probably getting off topic but I will post one more time from “my indigenous perspective.”

I don’t see myself as an unusually well assimilated aboriginal as you suppose. I see myself as a person making do with what I have access to and what opportunities and talents I have used in my life.

I don’t think you get my point – waiting for a government or agency to pick you up is not the way to better yourself. You do it yourself, regardless of race. Sure it may be harder for some people but what is wrong with a bit of elbow grease. It makes things all the more satisfying when you achieve. People who wait for change can be left waiting a long time.

Your attitude of the helping the poor defenceless aboriginals does more harm than good and is more racist than someone who tells us to get on with life.

I don't think doing that has made me well assimilated, perhaps maybe just well adjusted, a hard worker or just damn lucky. Whichever way, I am no going to apologise for having a bit of success in my life.

Although I am sorry for not fitting your aboriginal in distress stereotype because I don't live in squalor waiting for an apology and a handout.

Chek, you spoke of empathy. I grew up in a what you would consider a poor suburb with many indigenous and non-indigenous people. The problem is not ethnicity it is low socioeconomic status. Many of the people i went to school with have made something of themselves and many haven't. All with the same access to Government services. The big differences usually have something to do with family and parenting but you can't stop people breeding can you.

I play football and I have seen some very talented young men throw away what could have been a professional career. I have not turned my back on anyone, but what is the point of trying to help people who won’t help themselves.

That’s my 350 words

t.u.s

Col do not be so patronising. To infer that you speak from your knowledge of life and I do not does not get us anywhere. I have experienced 'life' and have as much common sense as either of you do.

Sure people are individuals and have responsibility for themselves and there will always be people who do well and those who do not.

But this simplistic platitude does not explain the huge difference between the proportion of white people and Indigenous people who are disadvantaged. Obviously there is something worse for Indigenous people than for white people.

T.U.S. I would say you were lucky that you learned that you could manifpulate your environment. That is the difference between those who help themselves and those who do not. Those who do not help themselves do not know how to go about it, did not learn the skills that you did learn. These skills may seem obvious to you but they are not.

You are right that it comes from the family and you can't stop people breeding but you can provide opportunities that increase their chances to do better. One long term study found that a nurse visiting a family once a week for a year after the birth of a child, correlated with better outcomes for these children, 16 years later.

It is quite obvious to me that people do not 'choose' to live in squallor if they believe they can do better and it is also quite obvious that we can do better in providing all children with opportunities to learn the skills that allow them to see that they have a choice.

Aboriginal or not, the Framers of the Constitution held we were all alike!
It was however, after federation, that legislation was put in place to unconstitutionally rob Aboriginals of electoral rights, etc.

I could not care less if a person is Aboriginal, Chinese, or whatever, they are human beings and have every right to equality!
Regretfully, because of the 1967 con-job referendum, Aboriginals are more harmed then most Aboriginals ever may be aware off, albeit the electors were made to believe it was for a better deal for Aboriginals, but, that is beyond the scope of this notice to set out.

One of my daughters, first cousins 5 children are Aboriginal, and they made clear to me they just wish people treated them as any other Australian.

How we provide services to people in remote areas should not be based upon the race or religion of the people living there. We must provide for all people the same services, regardless of their ethnic, religious, or colour of skin.
However, when for example a man of about 55 years old separate with his wife and then start living with a woman of aboriginal decent and for this get access to Aboriginal welfare system, etc, then people obviously are starting to complain as to this kind of discrimination!
We have a so-called “white-man” who merely by living in a de facto relationship suddenly gets all rights as that of an Aboriginal!

This created discrimination, between “white-man” and “”white-man” merely upon the basis with what the racial background is of the women they are happen to live with (even so not married to).
Funds, that might be needed for Aboriginals themselves are by this siphoned off for a person who should not be entitled at all to those funds.

However, when people are told about the total funding for Aboriginals, it does not disclose how much of it is actually used by people who are not Aboriginal at all!
This further accelerate some deep resentment by many against Aboriginals, even so this is a misperception, albeit understandable.

Mollydukes – I am not being patronising, as you claim. I was observing t.u.s. and I share similar “values” and expectations – that is the equal right to exercise our freewill in pursuit of personal excellence.

Simplistic demands to ensure no one is allowed to rise or fall by their own efforts (socialist nanny-state thinking) simply ensure the mediocre will be the best available for all, having outlawed the “excellence” which is achieved by self determination.
And helping oneself is not a matter of “manipulation” at all – it is called “facing the facts and realities of life” and dealing with them.

Nanny-politics, which is what you are espousing, is the source of the warm fuzzy feelings stemming from “theoretical social merit”, untested by any hard and cold measure of “real social value” (a bit like building infrastructure for the social good without testing for “financial viability” – a favourite socialist sink-hole).

As for people living in squalor – go and ask them. However, do not assume your “personal standards” are universal – one of the problems of socialism is it “presumes” too much and “accepts” too little.

Back to the topic of the article – I see no opportunity for any other nation state to dare question the performance of Australia on assimilation standards when no other state can come any closer to “Worlds Best Practice” than Australia.

As for Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka “Funds, that might be needed for Aboriginals themselves are by this siphoned off for a person who should not be entitled at all to those funds.”

I guess you recognising and blaming ATSIC ? – which has (at last) been fixed by the incumbent government

The easiest way to fix the problem is to make all social benefits universal, administered with the mainstream of benefits and no distinction under any circumstances – One system, One standard, One audit trail. No exceptions and fewer loopholes.

Re;
“The easiest way to fix the problem is to make all social benefits universal, administered with the mainstream of benefits and no distinction under any circumstances – One system, One standard, One audit trail. No exceptions and fewer loopholes.

Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:25:42 AM”

That would be the perfect solution, but the 1967 con-job referendum with subsequent legislation prevents this currently to occur.
We should altogether abolish Section 51(xxvi) and take the position that no form of discrimination/racism is accepted.

Once the PEOPLE vote in a referendum to abolish Section 51(xxvi) then this in itself will be an endorsement for prohibition for any kind of racism/discrimination based upon race or colour of skin.

Albeit little known to people, without Section 116 of the Constitution the Commonwealth cannot at all enforce any religious observations. The States however retained the rights to do so!

To stop that, then we ought to introduce in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act a provisions such as, for example;
“Neither the Commonwealth of Australia and/or any State or Territory shall legislate or allow any form of discrimination based upon colour of skin, race and or religion!”

I accept that some form of discrimination at times is warranted. For example for a person in a wheelchair to be allowed to enter a sporting station first as to enable them safely being positioned rather then getting caught in some kind of stampede where people are trying to rush for a seat and then a wheelchair can be dangerous as people may trip and cause a blockage endangering others also.

Still, this kind of discrimination (if you want to call this discrimination rather then safety precaution) ought not be a blockage to a general deterrent to discriminate.

As for ATSIC, I viewed it was unconstitutional, but its demise would not likely alter the abuse of funding by non-Aboriginal persons. What is an Aboriginal in the first place, as many call them selves Aboriginal regardless being of that race? Perhaps indigenous would be a more appropriate term?