You should check your history @Rooey. As an example of why I say this, the aboriginal population of Tasmania in 1803/04 at the time of invasion is estimated to have been 3000–4000 people. By 1833, after murders, illness brought in by settlers, the remaining 300 aborigines on the mainland of Tasmania were rounded up and taken to Flinders Island. By 1847 only 47 survived to be moved to another prison in Oyster Bay. Settlers killed between 1803/04 and 1832 estimated to be around 200 (Ryan 1996). This pattern can be repeated across Australia.
In response to your question @DWW25921, I can’t speak for Canada but I don’t think you can hold Australia or any other country’s political system up as being vastly superior to the system in the US. Many here (I am in Australia) would argue the US system is more democratic. For instance, our Prime Minister is not voted for by the people, they are appointed by their party which brings in many factional influences.
We are also experiencing the frustration of having a minority government. This means that to get any bill passed through the lower or upper house, the government has to work with the Greens and the Independents. Rather than being “in bed” with the Greens as @rooeytoo suggested, if the government want to get any legislation passed, they have no option but to negotiate with the Greens. The ALP has been openly hostile to the Greens in recent times but they are still dependent on maintaining some level of negotiation for our government to operate at all. The Opposition, is jokingly called the Noalition here because of their tendency to vote against any legislation the ALP government put up. Hence the government’s need for support from minor parties and independents. So, the problem you identify in the US democratic system is present in our system too. I agree, it would be great if our politicians could weigh up what is in the best interest of the country and vote accordingly, but that isn’t how contemporary politics works sadly.
As to Aboriginal people being advantaged in Australia. The traditional owners of this land make up just over 2% of our population, the median age is 21 as opposed to 37 for the general population. 38% of the Indigenous population is under 15. An Indigenous man’s life expectancy in 2003 was 59.4, women 64.8. There is a “life expectation inequality gap when compared to the general Australian population of 17 years”. The document I am quoting from suggests this is a similar life expectancy rate as for people in developing countries. Australia has one of the strongest economies in the world.
If we consider child health, an Indigenous baby is twice as likely to be born with a low birth rate. There are apparently no more recent reliable data for infant mortality but the figure cited here shows that between 2001–2005 two to three times the number of indigenous infants died before their first birthday, as non-indigenous infants. This document also details the stats that show poorer mental, physical and substance abuse situations for Aboriginal people when compared to the general population.
Income – Most Aboriginal people have an income that is around 69% of that of other Australians. This drops to 40% in remote areas. In 2006, the median weekly gross individual income for indigenous peoples was $278, this represented 59% of the median weekly gross individual income for non-indigenous peoples. In 2006, nearly half of all Indigenous people were not in the labour force in 2006. The non-participation figure for non-Indigenous people was 24%.
Schooling – only 43% of Indigenous school students were retained through to year 12 (our last year of school). In the 2006 Census, 23% of Indigenous people were shown to have finished year 12.
Housing. There is more over-crowding in Indigenous households than non-Indigenous (3.4 person Indigenous/2.6 non-Indigenous). In remote areas the size of the average household increases from 3.2 to 5.3. A 2002 survey found a third of all Indigenous households had problems such as damp, cracks in floors and walls, plumbing problems, roof defects.
I could go on and on but you make your own decision about whether Aboriginal people are “greatly subsidized in many ways and have the same opportunities available to them as anyone else” (roeeytoo).
Most of this data was drawn from a report produced by our Australian Human Rights Commission – a government body. This document from the Australian Bureau of Statistics also provides data about health, demographics, education etc. The gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian health, education, housing outcomes etc. is very, very slowly improving but we have a long way to go before there is any level of equality. Perhaps this will never happen. I don’t know. It is a complicated issue and my feeling is we need to spend a lot more time working with communities at a local level and putting in place programs, developed with Indigenous people, that run for longer than government sessions. Any solutions will not be found at a national level. We have to work with the people on the ground.
Draw your own conclusions anyway. I would be interested to see the valid data @rooeytoo has to support her suggestion that Aboriginal people are unfairly subsidised. Many Aboriginal elders do not approve of the welfare framework and believe this is holding Aboriginal people back. Hence my argument, Indigenous people need to be involved in the development any government policy and its implementation at a local level.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
