The other concern I have is the definition of 'indigenous’.Yes,...

First 6 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Kep

143 Posts.

8

19/10/23

09:54

Post #: 70420997
Share

Originally posted by ConSpec: ↑

This is what Wesfarmers should have done at the outset. rather than wasting money a poorly defined change in the consitution.

Having said that, they are denying the fact that there are possible political solutions, such as auditing current funding allocations to support indigenous people, and addressing sexual and domestic violence. The problem is that the political groups Wesfarmers has aligned themselves with (Teals, Greens, ALP) do not support addressing these issues. So I still consider Wesfarmers as out of touch. Having said that I certainly support practical steps to providing positive outcomes; although one has to be very careful that they are doing so in a manner that does not significantly reduce efficiency, profitability or morale. If it is true (and I think it is a bit of a porky) that indigenous people drink cordial because they can't afford water - I would certainly support initiatives to access drinking water. But more seriously whilst it does appear there is some heart issue that leads to an increase in child deaths, and the solution is known, the ALP made it very clear they weren't going to do anything about it unless the Voice told them to. Maybe it is a good idea to actually solve the problem rather than wait to be told.

The other concern I have is the definition of 'indigenous'. For those who live in a bubble including Wesfarmers board, about 30% of 'indigenous Australians' have no indigenous heritage - so try and limit any assistance to real disadvantaged indigenous Australians - not someone who crosses a box, or indeed might have some great-great-great grandmother (like ray martin).

My problem is I seriously doubt a Company like Wesfarmers has the guts to come to terms with real issues - and might be better off not being too oriented to Social Justice when they don't understand (or the desire to understand) the issues, as they did with the Voice.
I still think they need to pay back the shareholders funds for the Voice if they want to regain credibility.

Expand

The other concern I have is the definition of 'indigenous’.

Yes, that is the big one. The current definition worked well before ‘indigenous’ became so watered down that now people with very little aboriginal descent can nominate others with even less to be defined as ‘indigenous’. This is diluting the funds going to those who really need them and in my estimation a large reason why so many voted NO.

WES Price at posting: $52.58 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
3 Upvote

2 Great analysis

Reply