I’m still amused that in a list of his Austerity/Ideological cuts I posted here in December was =
[SIZE=“4”]**Abolishes the ANZAC Centenary Public Fund Board
**[/SIZE]
Gallipoli Centenary - 4 years, check.
Gallipoli Centenary - 3 years, check.
Gallipoli Centenary - 2 years, check.
Gallipoli Centenary - 1 year, called off due to rain.
The ANZAC Centenary Public Fund Board replaced the ANZAC Centenary Advisory Board in 2014. [ On 7 March 2014, the Minister announced the termination of the Anzac Centenary Advisory Board, as its work had been completed, and announced the establishment of the Anzac Centenary Public Fund Board. ]
One must assume they included the non-likelihood of survivors protesting after waiting 100 years.
Perhaps you could explain why I’m wrong rather than just saying “no, you’re wrong.”
Is it factually incorrect that incredibly isolated, very small communities are difficult to service and economically unviable? Because that’s the truth at the heart of what he said. I would need a great deal of evidence to convince me that isn’t the case.
It’s one thing to approve or disapprove of your own country’s penal system, but quite another when you’re talking about that of another country entirely. I am heavily opposed to the death penalty but I’m not interested in keeping Americans sentenced to death overseas from their fates (assuming they received a fair trial.)
…for the indigenous people in Australia living in incredibly isolated very small communities is not a “lifestyle choice.” There is no truth in that at all. Perhaps you might like to get fully up to speed on the mechanics of aboriginal affairs in Australia before you comment any further. You’ve admitted you are ignorant on the subject at hand. That’s all that needs to be said really.
RickJay, nobody is denying that servicing remote communities is bloody hard, and in many cases economically disastrous. But suggesting that the government force those communities to just up and move somewhere else smacks of a knee-jerk response to an issue that requires a whole lot more consideration.
For a quick background, google Aborigines and Country. The Aboriginal connection to land and/or country (note, not The land, nor The country) is paramount in their cultural, familial and even personal identities. It’s not just a patch of dirt to live on, because unlike western attitudes to land (a commodity to be bought and sold) within Aboriginal culture, the land itself owns the individual.
I’m no expert, but I’ll give it a clumsy go (please forgive me, Indigenous Australians, as I’ll no doubt screw it up):
Aboriginal spirituality is largely about their creation stories, called “The Dreaming”, which emphasises that human life is fleeting but the Land is enduring. All come from the Land and are owned by the Land, and they tell stories about the Land and how certain geological features came to be as their cultural responsibility.
It’s all very well and good to say that they need to find a way to keep their culture alive while physically living elsewhere like other religions have done, but the core of their culture and spirituality is the Land, their connection to it and their belief that they are owned by it. The Land is the central figure in their mythology. You can’t compare it to Muslim people continuing to observe their faith outside their ancestral lands; try axing Mohammed for budgetary reasons and see what that does to them.
Of course, “Aboriginal culture” is a gross generalisation, as they are not one homogeneous people sharing a single set of beliefs. They are many, many tiny groups of people trying to keep alive the culture of their ancestors for the last 40,000 years.
So, ultimately, while the cost of maintaining these small communities may be high, it must be clearly understood that closing them will ultimately result in the destruction of 40,000 year old cultures that have already been under sustained attack for most of the last 220 years.
Yes, their numbers are so low that they’ll probably die out in time anyway and this is hastening the inevitable. Do our past crimes against them that brought them to this point burden us with a greater responsibility towards them in the twilight of their culture? I can’t answer that.
Thing is, we are talking $30 million (according to the ABC), combined state/commonwealth funding - across all states - not just WA. That’s a tiny amount in the scheme of things.
Our government is spending 8 times that just to put chaplains in state schools.
If they close these communities there is nowhere for the residents to go. The larger towns already have problems around unemployment, booze etc and the move will just overload the existing community service organisations and the government will still have to deliver the same, or more, services to the region.
It’ll probably be more costly in the long run as there will be long-term, flow-on effects of shifting hundreds or even thousands of people from lands where they have a sense of belonging and community.
If this goes ahead I hope the media keep a close eye on the region to see which mining or mineral exploration companies move in.
A tiny amount? I’ll have you know that’s about $3 per taxpayer per year. A minimum wage earner would have to work for nearly 10 minutes a year to fund that.
I’m a Kiwi…
Calling me a damn blardy frog bes fighting words…
I was (and am) angry that our govt released the murderers to the French - caving to diplomatic pressure.
The blardy terrorists not only interfered in our internal affairs in a gross violation of all that is good, they also put diplomatic pressure on New Zealand, sticking there noses in.
What the Australian PM is doing is similar - he’s fucking with another countries judiciary, sticking his nose into their punishments - he’s NOT following their laws, but acting like a stuck up bully with no respect at all for another country.
Australia is perfectly entitled to help their citizens judicially with whatever support they deem appropriate.
They are also entitled to bring pressure to bear on countries that have the death penalty.
What they shouldn’t be doing is saying “we gave you aid and if you dare to punish our citizens in line with your legal system we’re going to punish you by withdrawing that aid”.
New Zealand caved because of “diplomatic pressure”. Indonesia should not.
Off topic - but our rugby team is arguably the best team in the history of sport,
Our explorer is probably the best there’s been - he certainly knocked the bastard off,
And Mordor certainly wouldn’t be the same without Pete…
I wouldn’t consider that a hard rule. If a foreign nation was planning on executing Australian citizens for being gay, or if the verdict was based on an unacceptably lax standard of evidence, then turning things into a diplomatic incident could be called for. This is merely a dispute over sentencing, and Abbott should not be threatening our relationship with Indonesia for the sake of a pair of assholes whose business is getting people addicted to one of the most destructive recreational drugs out there.
