Hi Aidan,

Just to pick you up on your comment:

"Big Nana,
When you pay taxes, you cease to own the money; the government owns it instead. Therefore the teenagers have a better understanding of the situation than you: the government does have money of its own."

But many Aboriginal people, moreso those in remote communities, believe - seriously - that government simply have money, oodles of it; maybe, if people in remote (and not so remote) areas, think about it, that governments make money, print it, churn it out at will. I don't know about the Kimberley where Big Nana has lived for fifty-odd years, but in southern communities, this is often how Aboriginal people in 'communities' think, or at least it was three or four decades ago.

Not only that, but that many Aboriginal people believe that whitefellas get their houses free, their housing maintenance is done free (maybe by fairies at night), and they probably get their cars free: so why aren't Blackfellas getting their houses and cars free, why should they pay rent, since after all it's their country ?

One problem with living in tiny, piddly 'communities' is that you can't easily develop much understanding of the outside world, whether you're Black or White. So you judge by what you occasionally csee: if a whitefella is looking after his front yard, beautifully manicured, etc., then he must have had help from the government, and his well-kept house was probably provided ree as well. Because that's what it looks like. And he's got a nice SUV, so that's probably a gift from the government. Poor Blackfellas have to pay rent, and pay for their own cars. White bastards get it so easy.

Seriously. That's how many people perceive their world. Governments make, i.e. manufacture, money. What's a taxpayer ? So there's often not the slightest awareness that governments accrue income from taxpayers (of many sorts), royalties, import duties, etc. So the government can print more money at will, they make it for whitefellas, so why doesn't it make more for Blackfellas ?

Cheers,

Joe

Armchair critic, I uunderstand your point but I’m in a position to know that many of pthose kids simply don’t know any better. They have just followed the adult role models in their lives and it’s their way of surviving, plus expressing their anger at the hell their lives are.
I’m certainly not saying they shouldn’t be punished but some of those kids are tiny and the thought of them in a adult prison is horrifying.

But back to my initial point. 16 year olds do not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to get involved in anything as complex as voting, just as they shouldn’t be accountable for adult crimes unless there are special circumstances.

Joe a mate in PNG was a district officer. He was at Pomio, about 70 miles from Rabaul. He used to rant about the education the kids were getting.

He reckoned the Pomio kids got the best PNG had to offer, but it was all wrong for them. They could read a news paper, understand the words, but had no idea what they were reading. He mentioned trying to explain to these bush kids what a newspaper article about a wharf labourers strike in Rabaul.

They could understand the words, but not the story. How someone with a real job, earning real money could not go to work was beyond their understanding.

They could not picture high rise flats, with lifts, it was just too foreign to them. He reckoned teaching them about things they could never really understand or aspire to simply made them discontent. Another example of unexpected consequences, from well intentioned city folk who were as ignorant of life in Pomio as the kids were of life in a big town or city.

One thought to the voting age. At what age do most people graduate from public school? That might be worth considering the minimum age to consider. (Not the minimum age to vote, but to not consider any age under that age group). The reasoning for this would be that the kids have enough of their focus on school instead of the outside world, causing their vote to be of little thought and little value even though it's impact would be the same for those who are actually taking part in the outside world.

A second though for a voting age. If the exceptions to vote arguments hold up, (you get to vote if you are working, in the military, or otherwise on your own and not under the protection of your parents); then a possible r sponge would be that a tempory voting license be given. Not based on passing a test, but based on involvement in the world and being on your own. The catch? Don't make voting mandatory at younger ages. Just an option if they are holding the responsibilities of mature adults while they are at a younger age.

My personal opinion. 18 is a resonable age to be able to vote. Nothing earlier to be considered unless there's an exception for the people voting because they are in the military, earning an income, or otherwise not counted as dependents on their parents tax forms.

It is not just age, but we really should not have the disinterested voting. I had a bloke in the booth beside me who should not have voted.

He did his house vote looking as if he knew what he wanted. Then the senate. When he looked at the paper he said F me, than asked me how to do it. The girls at the desk were doing a good job explaining how to do it, but he must not have listened.

I explained, he looked at it again, asked another couple of questions, gave up, & numbered 1 to 6 from the left. I wonder how many donkey votes there are on these huge senate papers?

Dear Hasbeen,

Thank you for this contribution, I definitely agree.

One way to stop such donkey-votes is to include on the ballot paper some names of parties which do not exist. If any of them is marked, then the vote is considered informal.