Frank wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 3:56pm:


er....

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/indigenous-employment

Comparing the most recent data for people (all Australians)  aged 15–64 with earlier surveys:

between 2007–08 and 2018–19, the overall employment rate for Indigenous Australians dropped from 54% to 49%, while the rate for non-Indigenous Australians remained stable at roughly 76% (Figure 1)


in the 2017–18 to 2018–19 period, the overall gap in employment rates between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians was 27 percentage points (Figure 1)  (49 +27 = 76)

If the employment trends presented on this page are adjusted for the effect of changes and closure of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme, then the employment rate for Indigenous Australians remained stable over the 2008 to 2018–19 period at around 49% (SCRGSP 2020).

ie, in 2007 some CDEP schemes still in operation resulted in the higher black employment rates of 54% in 2007.

A Job Guarantee will gradually eliminate the employment gap, currently "27 percentage points".

Frank wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 4:15pm:


Not so: in 2007 the overall black employment rate with the CDEP was 54%; it fell to 49% when the CDEP was cancelled.

A JG will employ everyone of working age, eventually, as community dysfunction is eliminated.

Somers Trail wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 7:16pm:


Struggle Street will not be asked.

The 'black gap' is the same - you get what you work for across the number of hours you work for it.  If you choose to live in the Ning Nang Nong where there is no work, you cannot demand that work be offered via room service free to you.  It is up to YOU to take the steps required - you know - personal responsibility?

And one more dreary time - any 'voice' will not alter that in any way... and will only ever be the cause of endless disputes and trouble and violence.

Stop being envious of white men who go out and work to their best to get ahead instead of wallowing in self pity all day.

You just go round and round endlessly and stick to your ideology regardless of how many holes are shot in it... are you autistic?  Or just a troll?

Both major parties have adopted separate political strategies leading into the referendum, diminishing the chances of consensus and increasing the likelihood of failure.

Anthony Albanese’s strategy is to try and shame the Coalition into supporting the voice without providing the finer details, which risk splitting the Yes vote.  In contrast, Peter Dutton’s approach is to demand a definitive model beforehand so Australians know exactly what they will be voting for.

This sets up a political impasse that cannot be resolved without one side shifting ground.  But it also means both parties will have a reason to heap responsibility on to the other if the vote is lost – an outcome that will mire the nation in a period of ugly political recrimination.
...
So far, the Liberal Party hasn’t even reached a formal position on whether it will support the proposal and Labor doesn’t know how the voice will operate.  This is not a recipe for success.

The 15 practical questions put to Albanese by Dutton will need to be answered at some point. These are fundamental issues the parliament will need to deal with in the event of a successful vote.

Who can serve on the voice, will members be elected or appointed, how many will make up the body, what are the functions and powers of the voice? Will there be a definition of Aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body?

Dutton is right to say these questions are not unreasonable. His appeal for Albanese to provide the “basic detail” will resonate with those who are supportive of a voice but uncomfortable at supporting a new body without knowing how it will operate.

Will Albanese answer Dutton’s 15 questions? Will he sit down with the Opposition Leader to work out what model the Liberals could support, where there is scope for agreement and where Labor could make concessions? Don’t count on it.

The politics of the voice referendum is not being conducted in this manner. Labor believes the details can be worked out later.

This is a high-risk strategy. If the voice is defeated, Albanese may have a much harder time than he thinks in managing the politics of blame or sheeting home responsibility to Dutton.

After all, he is the Prime Minister who championed the voice and raised expectations – all while ignoring demands to explain how the new body was supposed to work.
JOE KELLY  CANBERRA BUREAU CHIEF

A commenter:
No Govt money for the no campaign.  But there is for the yes.  Tax deduction for donating to the yes cause but not for the no cause.  Total inequality on behalf of Labor.  Yet we are expected to blindly follow Albo because off the vibe of the thing.  Well get stuffed.  Given it's not an even playing field it's a solid no.


Another:
Why would anyone give any government, let alone this one, a blank cheque?
That's before even considering the fundamental issue of whether different Australians should have different constitutional rights, based on race.

If the Voice to Parliament is passed

First, if the Voice does get up, its highest priority should be to abandon the prevailing ideology that Indigenous Australians are fundamentally different from non-Indigenous Australians.

I believe the number one reason why are not seeing the gap close, despite considerable investment in programs that aim to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, is because they have been cast as having vastly different needs from other Australians. But they essentially have the same fundamental needs as other Australians.

My default position when I first took an interest in Indigenous affairs was that the commonalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians far outweigh any differences. Nearly three decades later, and I have not seen any evidence to the contrary.

Yes, there are minor differences, and they should be considered, but only after first recognising the commonalities. Over the years, I have listened to the many voices of Indigenous leaders, consultants and cultural experts, along with political leaders and academics, preach the myth of fundamental difference, while carving out nice careers for themselves.

Second, following from the previous idea that Indigenous people have the same fundamental needs as non-Indigenous people, then the Voice should advise government to develop policies and programs for Indigenous Australians that ensure they have the opportunity to live in safe and clean environments, have access to modern services and quality education, posses those skills that make them employable, and have ready access to jobs, in order to thrive. These are the same needs other Australians have, which, when met, enable them to thrive.

Third, the Voice must be active in changing the dominant narrative that Indigenous Australians are the endless victims of racism, because they are not. This will require a major overhaul of the school curriculum and what is taught in universities. When Indigenous Australians are led to believe that racism is holding them back, they are sapped of motivation to work hard to succeed, and view non-Indigenous Australians as the enemy.

Finally, once recognising that Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians are far more alike than they are different, the Voice should abandon the preferred view that only Indigenous Australians are considered capable of understanding and helping Indigenous Australians.

If the Voice to Parliament is not passed

So, what if the Voice does not get up? Then I suggest that the current lot of Indigenous voices, of which there are many at all levels of government, start to enact the ideas in the preceding paragraphs. But wouldn’t this imply that the proposed Voice to Parliament is redundant? I think it does.
https://www.news.com.au/national/myth-about-indigenous-aussies-that-needs-to-change-amid-voice-to-parliament/news-story/f089dc9b3ee9838e9db058b3d4c7f242