March 1, 2011

Australian governments spend twice as much on Aborigines

The Australian newspaper reports:
The 2010 indigenous expenditure report released today shows that for the year 2008-2009 expenditure “related to” indigenous Australians totalled $21.9 billion, or 5.3 per cent of total general government expenditure.
While expenditure on non-indigenous Australians is estimated at $18,351 per person, expenditure on indigenous Australians per head of population is estimated at $40,228. ...
The report is the first of its kind and was agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments to assist policy makers in reducing disadvantage for indigenous Australians.

Expect the Australian Parliament to vote an apology about 2065 for The Spoiled Generations.

17 comments:

eh said...

In addition they should get free shampoo and hair color. They're worth it.


OT

A can of, err, worms:

Insurance premiums to change after ECJ gender ruling

Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.

The decision means that women can no longer be charged lower car insurance premiums than men, and the cost of buying a pensions annuity will change.

TGGP said...

I wonder how many of those aboriginals are white?

Stopped Clock said...

In a normal sample of women recruited for similar sales work, around 40% would be non-white. 40% of French are nonwhite?? Surely not. They must be choosing this "normal" sample very abnormally.

Also of course the anti-racism campaigners who are cheering victory don't seem to care about the women who were rejected for reasons other than race, but what else would we expect?

Peter A said...

Mock all you want, but the Aborigines were there first and did not ask for a bunch of whites and Asians to immigrate to their country. So what to do with the Aborigines? They are genetically unfit to compete in modern society - that's pretty clear. So what are your choices?
a. You can kill them all
b. You can provide them with some sort of compensation and some means to survive in a society for which they're not suited.

If you accept HBD, then you're also accepting the fact that these people generally cannot compete and cannot be self sufficient in modern society. Asking them to do so is about as fair as taking a bunch of 10 year olds and telling them to get jobs and fend for themselves. "White Man's Burden" is an apt description.

Chicago said...

We don't have enough of them in the USA, they're underrepresented. Let's make a bid for for them and ship a few loads to Minnesota. We'll spend $60,000 per year on each of them, unlike the frugal Australian government. We'll pay the airfare to seal the deal. I know many Americans will be dying to adopt their very own aborigine; the young ones are so cute and unlike cabbage patch dolls they actually squeak when you squeeze them

neil craig said...

I suspect the large majority of this money is spent paying administrators, aborigine awareness organisers, psychiatric advisors, sociological advisors etc. They could semd every abo an annual cheque for $40,000 and cut out the middleman but I suspect the middlemen would object.

SF said...

Aborigines are 2.5% of Australia's population. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia) This won't bankrupt the country.

NAM's are about 24% of the population of the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States That spending ratio applied here would or will put the hurt on our economy

Anonymous said...

Peter A is correct. The neo-con solution of tackling the 'welfare mentality' is hopelessly shallow. Australian Aborigines are Australia's unique problem or 'burden' indeed. However, the real problem is that they face becoming second class blacks within their own country. Non-Australian indigines in Australia from the region (New Zealand Maoris, Fijians, Samoans, New Guineans, etc) already equal roughly the numbers of the local indigine. And the new wave of sub continental Asians and Africans will easily outnumber them in the 2011 census.
Recent reports have Somali 'refugee' gangs exploiting young Aborigine girls as prostitues in central Australia. This pattern of the weakest under-under-class being exploited by the neo-colonial underclass is typical.

Anonymous said...

"a. You can kill them all
b. You can provide them with some sort of compensation and some means to survive in a society for which they're not suited."


Option b. is fine provided it comes with mandatory sterilization. If the taxpayer is forced to pay for useless people to live, it should not have to pay for more than one generation. Asking us to pay for their children forever is ludicrous and unsustainable. That two percent of the population has a way of growing quickly.

Anonymous said...

"Mock all you want, but the Aborigines were there first and did not ask for a bunch of whites and Asians to immigrate to their country."

It's precisely this tendency to think in terms of "fairness" that has got whites in to so much trouble today that they soon won't have any homelands of their own whatsoever.

So, frankly: stuff it. The old white guilt and "fairness" game don't fly anymore.

Anonymous said...

The more money is spent on this sort of thing, things just get worse. You can't really compare the Aborigines and the Maori, but it seems the situation in NZ is getting worse by the day, as more and more money and effort is put into "helping" the Maori and showing how "disadvantaged" they are... Unemployment, dole suckers, gangs...everything in NZ seems so much worse than it used to be.

Anonymous said...

Call it the Aboriginal-industrial complex.

freg dag said...

You can provide them with some sort of compensation and some means to survive in a society for which they're not suited.

If you accept HBD, then you're also accepting the fact that these people generally cannot compete and cannot be self sufficient in modern society. Asking them to do so is about as fair as taking a bunch of 10 year olds and telling them to get jobs and fend for themselves. "White Man's Burden" is an apt description.


I quite agree, but try discussing this at your next BBQ. You will be howled down with PC righteousness and served the 'race' card.

Anonymous said...

It's precisely this tendency to think in terms of "fairness" that has got whites in to so much trouble today that they soon won't have any homelands of their own whatsoever.

So, frankly: stuff it. The old white guilt and "fairness" game don't fly anymore.


It isn't fair that some citizens should be free of the responsibilities that others must bear. That, in a nutshell, is my problem with lavishing money on indigenous people. If they want to enjoy particular rights as indigenous people they need to consider renouncing citizenship first.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

"Mock all you want, but the Aborigines were there first and did not ask for a bunch of whites and Asians to immigrate to their country."

I didn't ask for...oh, hell, why bother?

You either defend your territory, or you get overrun. It happened to the aborgines two centuries ago, and it's happening in America now.

Anonymous said...

Read this carefully, steve:

While expenditure on non-indigenous Australians is estimated at $18,351 per person, expenditure on indigenous Australians per head of population is estimated at $40,228. ...

This is comparing expenditures per person to expenditures per household.

Try apples-to-apples next time!

Analytical said...

This is comparing expenditures per person to expenditures per household.

Head of population is the same as per-capita.

Imagine if the USA required sterilization to receive e.g. Section 8 housing benefits for women with children.  Many things would start changing real fast, starting in Head Start in about 3 years.