Please note no one speaks of black or white, being coloured has become a lifestyle choice

Rolf de Heer slams Tony Abbott over 'lifestyle choice' comments on remote Aboriginal communities (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/rolf-de-heer-slams-tony-abbott-over-lifestyle-choice-comments-on-remote-aboriginal-communities-20150310-140it3.html)

Tony Abbott, Prime Minister and better known as the budgee smuggler from down under, has made some particularly insensitive remarks which could ignite a racial debate. An indigenous person living in a remote community, (for the uninitiated read black, aboriginal, primative) is making a lifestyle choice by living in their traditional home and the government will no longer subsidise this lifestyle choice. Damn, just when I was going to go bush and leave the maddening croud behind.

I'm wondering what alternative lifestyle choice these people could make? With no prospect of a job in the city, no accommodation they can afford, all moving would do is swell the ranks of the homeless. We have gone from full scale intervention in aboriginal communities, a racist approach to community policing and social policy since it targeted one ethnic group, to totally ignoring their existence. The problem just became too hard to solve with conventional wisdom because of lifestyle choice.. I expect walkabout is back in vogue.

You sound like the French, outlaw culture, and tradition, and institute the LAW.

These people have a LAW of their own, the only time our law is involved is when we know about a violation of the law. These are people who tolerated wide spread child abuse and wife bashing in their communities. These are people for whom alcohol abuse is high culture. No racist white man did this to them. No one wants to outlaw custom, just not subsidise it, no one wants to outlaw tradition, just not subsidise it. The problem is this their culture has been destroyed by contact with outsiders, They receive welfare, they call it sit down money, how's that for culture, they live in places you and I would not tolerate, that is their tradition and they wait for someoneelse to build them a house, they have no tradition of houses. Their LAW is the law of the elder and the spear, a LAW of conform or be shunned..

Despite his foot in mouth attitude Tony is only reflecting what 95% of the country think. If they don't want to help themselves perhaps a dose of reality will help. it is very insensitive to say this and even worse it seems to do it. the attitude today is that government is responsible for every person below the poverty line. If this is so then that government might just be able to say where someone does or doesn't live. It is an interesting thought a kind of enforced migration, a true push factor.

The way I read it ,the aboriginal chose to live the way he does . The PM is right . No amount of public assistance will change that .

Yes it's not life style but a way of life as alien as if it originated on Mars but shussh you can't say that, it's racist to point it out, but we owe them, because our ancestors or someone's ancestors colonised a place that was all but empty. My ancestors came as free settlers long after the act of colonisation so we didn't take anything away from anybody so I don't owe them, the government of Britain might owe them but they have a bad habit of leaving that sort of stuff to someoneelse, their heirs and assigns.

You see they came in waves more than 10,000 years ago each wave wiping out the other and the British were just one more wave, somewhat belated. The culture originated in Asia or somewhereelse, animist in nature. The original settlers saw them as a part of nature and they believed this themselves, but of course attitudes change and two centuries on, we really aren't any further advanced. It is only in the last century that the last of the tribal people came in from the desert, it is almost unbelievable to a modern culture

So we have mixed race people who are basically the ones who cause the problems and the full bloods who just want their traditional life. Personally I don't see why we should subsidise either. Make services available in centres and if they come they can access them but forget about rebuilding these remote communities into our style, it's just benevolent beauracracy gone mad

forget about rebuilding these remote communities into our style, it's just benevolent beauracracy gone mad

that used to be called 'white man's burden' ...another progressive policy of a by gone day that has been repackaged to be politically correct.

Yes well this white man doesn't carry that particular burden

Such mentality to justify superiority over another human is hardly progressive PC. Arrogant, self serving, malevolence without regard, is more the case. Softening the words doesn't change the intent, and allows terms like manifest destiny to mask cruel and dehumanizing treatment.

Hollering about the ills of a minority group is the modern version that justifies separate but equal exploitation and suppression. These are the tools of ultra conservatives, and zealot fundamentalists, but the white mans true burden is get real, and tell it straight from the get go. (Why lie about your racism, sexism, etc?)

Those that cannot speak with forked tongue as a matter of course.

Yes Tal but you can't tell it like it is, it is considered racist to point out that a minority isn't interested in being part of main stream society and you are no longer going to support them in their squalor. It is not exploitation to say if you wish to live in this place we will not provide services there. It is not suppression to say if you want employment opportunities and services move to a place where these are available. It may be unrealistic to behave in this manner but let us look at the other side of the coin. If a mining company decises to operate in a remote location, the government doesn't rush to provide housing and services, these must be provided by the company or they don't exist. Many if fact choose not to provide them in a traditional manner of building a town, they flyin-flyout. Now there is a solution we haven't tried, airstrips have got to be cheaper and easier to maintain than houses

The fact is this minority has lived in these places for a long time without government help and then came the intervention, but before that came ATSIC where billions were wasted pouring money into local land councils that just disappeared without improvement in services or the well being of the people. We have tried self government, we have tried active intervention, and now it seems we will try leaving them alone. I expect the UNHCR will condemn us again for our failures but then they don't have to actually deal with the problem of a truculant, recalcicant population and I see their attitudes mirrored in your remarks. Our choice to deal with our problems in our way is racist. So much for paternalistic crap

Your way or the highway right?

Exactamundo when it comes to those who want to do their own thing, go do it on their own time and at their own expense. I don't think you comprehend what we are speaking about here but consider that there might be an indigenous remnant of a tribe who wanted to live in the midst of the forests of say, Oregon. Would you be prepared for your government to build them a village, develop schools and medical facilities, staff them and pay these people welfare while they had no intention of doing anything but sitting on their backside and contemplating their traditions

Oh, I comprehend completely what you are saying.

I'm still unsure you do but let's put this debate in perspective
Governments accused of 'walking away' from Indigenous housing commitment, as Binjari residents still struggle - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-15/governments-accused-of-walking-away-from-indigenous-housing/6320918)