Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Indigenous children still struggling with literacy amid Voice concerns: Johns" video.

@ablet85 cite your data source for your claim of $39 billion.
2
@timrohds750 No it isn't and I showed the no vote argument is lacking in truth and fact.
2
@kevinfergusson694 So under the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976. Multiple Aboriginal land owners have given permission for mining on thier land. As well the Native title act allows for mining to proceed with consent from indigenous land owners.
2
Cite your source for your claim of 39 million.
1
@dontbeasheeple5883 Thankyou. Somebody finally took the bait. Mind you the figures quoted by the others don't match with the productivity commission report but I'll let that stupidity ride. The 2017 productivity commission report has been fully debunked. The $33.4 billion figure includes all federal, state, and local government money proportionally spent on indigenous people as a percentage of the population. So every cent spent on roads, maintenance of council toilets, garbage removal, in fact everything the local council spends on services. Next, at state level your 33.4 billion figure includes all public money spent on public schools hospitals, police, railways, roads. At a federal level it includes money spent on Defence, industry assistance, DFAT, Medicare, NDIS. Your 33.4 billion number is a meaningless figure. You should have actually read the report like I did not just quote the figure off a media report you dimwit. I apologise I threw you a googly knowing full well you would think it was a leggie. You swung and missed and now you have been bowled out.
1
@dontbeasheeple5883 in your embarrassment when you actually read the report you will find the actual figure spent directly on indigenous programs is $6 billion out of a total budget of over $500 billion. Indigenous people are approximately 3% of the population so that $6 billion works out at about 1.3% of the budget. You really should have read the report before citing it as a reference.
1
@judysimpson3774 Selectively quoting one paragraph of a lengthy fact check is fallacious nonsense and is called cherry picking data. I have read the actual report the $33 billion number is meaningless. You are being deliberately dishonest and mischievous.
1
@kevinfergusson694 I understand your point, however it is an impossible figure to calculate. There is the value that indigenous/traditional owners place on land and then there would be the value us colonisers would calculate, then there is the improved value of the land. Best to ask someone else, as I don't think it is relevant anyway.
1
@noelasandstrom9761 As explained in one of my previous comments your claim of $100 million a day is fallacious nonsense.
1
@noelasandstrom9761 A completely unsubstantiated claim of wrong doing without any evidence.
1
@kevinfergusson694 No. Which particular comments are you talking about. You asked about land value and I addressed that issue. You made another comment about peanuts compared to the what is taken from the land. So I have no issue with Indigenous people being compensated for loss/damage to their land however they can't be expected to share in the profits as well. If permission has been given to mine the land then you can't expect loss/damage payments as well.
1
Not exactly. Traditional owners should only be compensated for the unimproved value of the land as they played no part in the mining process.
1
@kevinfergusson694 No you don't understand. A Business rents a factory. It pays a monthly rent to the owner of the property. The business makes millions in profit. You are suggesting the owner of the rented property should share in the profits. Your argument is ludicrous. What if the mining project goes belly up and ends up owing billions to the banks, by your logic the indigenous owners would be required to pay the loss as well. Doesn't sound so good now Does it?
1
@kevinfergusson694 All human life is of equal value. In reality of course many societies/cultures/religionous groups think they are superior.
1
@timrohds750 The fallacious claim of the amount of money being spent is the entire point of the original comment. It is just factually wrong and you have no argument whatsoever.
1