This was posted 10 months 19 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

[VIC] Half Price Tickets For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Customers (Booking Fee Applies) @ RISING Festival Melbourne

1923
[VIC] Half Price Tickets For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Customers (Booking Fee Applies) @ RISING Festival Melbourne
Go to Deal
LBe careful on 08/06/2023 - 18:34 tickets.rising.melbourne (245 clicks)
Last edited 09/06/2023 - 02:01 by 2 other users

( first post, be kind)
Very nice deal where you can get half price tickets to all festival events plus booking fee.
You are given 2 options for tickets of full price or half price indigenous ticket.
Then enter credit card.
Obviously some people will think this is a great idea and some may think it’s not but I am making no comment on the ethics of giving certain people cheaper tickets or people who perhaps shouldn’t be buying certain tickets doing so. Just letting ozbargain etc know.
Note -if’s book through Ticketek etc only full price tickets are available.

Entertainment Festival Ticket

Related Stores

RISING: Melbourne
RISING: Melbourne

closed Comments

  • Musiclover on 08/06/2023 - 18:34
    +38

    That's racism!

    • Almost Banned on 08/06/2023 - 18:44
      +11

      Yes it is.
      Positive discrimination is still racism = just like the Voice.

  • spackbace on 08/06/2023 - 18:36
    +15

    How will they know? Will they do a blood test? Will they accept mixed race?

    All the questions!

    • Almost Banned on 08/06/2023 - 18:43
      +2

      I think that's the point.
      If you want to take advantage of the cheap tickets, no-one is able to question your indigenaity claim.

    • Sammyboy on 08/06/2023 - 19:48
      +2

      Legally no company etc is allowed to ask to check for proof right?

    • R00D on 08/06/2023 - 20:00
      +11

      In the last 5yrs the Indigenous population has risen by nearly 30%. Or should I say, the number of people who now identify as indigenous has.
      The incentives are there.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 10/06/2023 - 00:06
        -2

        In the last 5yrs the Indigenous population has risen by nearly 30%. Or should I say, the number of people who now identify as indigenous has.

        Who told you this? It sounds like rubbish to me, but if you have a reliable source I'll stand corrected.

          • GnarlyKnuckles on 12/06/2023 - 22:40
            -2

            @Almost Banned: What that says is:

            '… with some age groups showing an almost 30 per cent jump in the numbers since the last Census in 2016'

            That is completely different to what you stated, and it could be explained by aboriginal people now living longer (increasing percentages in the upper age bracket as time goes on), and factors related to birth rates. An expert in that source you states attribute it partly to high fertility rates.

            • Almost Banned on 12/06/2023 - 22:56

              @GnarlyKnuckles:

              What I stated?

              When did I state anything?
              You asked for a source to support R00D's comment that the Indigenous population has risen by nearly 30%. I gave you one.
              You are welcome. Still waiting for that acknowledgement of being wrong and corrected.

              • GnarlyKnuckles on 12/06/2023 - 23:00
                -2

                @Almost Banned: Ooops, I didn't realise a different person had provided the reference, sorry about that.

                It's a shame that they don't specify in that article which age groups had increased by almost 30%. My guess is it's the oldest age group, and the youngest age group, for the reasons I mentioned above.

                • Almost Banned on 12/06/2023 - 23:01

                  @GnarlyKnuckles: Right - so still waiting on you confirming your error…

                  • GnarlyKnuckles on 12/06/2023 - 23:01
                    -1

                    @Almost Banned: What error? I made no error.

                    • Almost Banned on 12/06/2023 - 23:02

                      @GnarlyKnuckles:

                      It sounds like rubbish to me, but if you have a reliable source I'll stand corrected.

                      That was you, right?
                      So, it wasn't rubbish, and you now stand corrected… right?
                      Is it that hard to admit you were wrong?

                      • GnarlyKnuckles on 12/06/2023 - 23:06

                        @Almost Banned: Sigh. R00d stated:

                        'In the last 5yrs the Indigenous population has risen by nearly 30%'

                        Even in that reference you provided, it states that the actual figure is 'about 25%'. If some age groups rose by almost 30%, simple maths tells you that 'about 25%' is most likely a reference to a percentage that is a bit less than 25%; which is not 'about 30%'.

                        • Almost Banned on 12/06/2023 - 23:09

                          @GnarlyKnuckles: Turns out it is that hard for some people.

                          It turns out that 'about 25%' is actually a bit more than 25% - so you were wrong on that one too.

                          https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torr….

                          • GnarlyKnuckles on 12/06/2023 - 23:11

                            @Almost Banned: Thanks for providing that new reference. Now, do you think that 25.2% is 'about 30%'? Because I don't, and I don't think many other people would either.

                            • Almost Banned on 12/06/2023 - 23:14
                              +1

                              @GnarlyKnuckles: I agree that 25.2% is not nearly 30% - but I also didn't think that the comment was intended to be taken literally.
                              I thought it was a bit hyperbolic and that it was a general comment that the indigenous population has jumped significantly.
                              And I took your comment to be disputing that the indigenous population had jumped significantly.
                              Do you honestly think that if R00d had claimed 25.2% you'd have said - right you are R00d, that number sounds spot on to me?
                              No, of course not. You disputed it because you disputed the whole idea that lots more people are suddenly claiming indigenaity than just a few years ago. That was wrong then, and is still wrong.

  • Pcosmic on 08/06/2023 - 18:38

    Shouldn't only the whites be punished?

  • tabboo on 08/06/2023 - 18:42
    +25

    Because racism against white people is acceptable…

    • Tyrx on 08/06/2023 - 18:56
      +9

      An Indigenous individual can be white, so that's technically not correct.

      This scheme is more like what is likely an attempt to reduce "structural barriers" that ATSI individuals face. Realistically it simply gets taken advantage of by individuals who identify as Indigenous who face no real structural barriers and are happy to make the narrative about themselves rather than regional communities.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 19:56

      Obviously this doesn't pass the 'pub test' because it is an openly racist policy … I wonder if it might also contravene one or more laws. I seem to recall that there are laws against racial discrimination in Australia. Unfortunately I'm not abreast of the extent to which they may apply in situations like this one, and situations/circumstances where an 'exemption' applies.

      If it's anything like the current situation in Australia that makes it entirely legal to discriminate against male job applicants, essentially all that the instigators of the racist policy need to do is claim that it is a 'special case'.

      If a sufficiently learned solicitor/lawyer could enlighten us on this matter, I would be eternally grateful.

  • SuBw00FeR on 08/06/2023 - 18:43
    +6

    Yes because this isn't racism/discrimination.

  • OZKap on 08/06/2023 - 18:45
    +6

    🍿

  • TanedaR on 08/06/2023 - 18:48
    +12

    This is the exact reason why I will vote against the Voice.
    No I'm not white nor indigenous.

    • AircraftFreight on 08/06/2023 - 19:00
      +2

      Fair and reasonable opinion!

    • DrScavenger on 08/06/2023 - 19:53
      -2

      7 updoots and 7 downdoots. Perfectly balanced.

  • gannon on 08/06/2023 - 18:50
    +10

    This is common initiative for many shows / festivals that feature large numbers of First Nations artists / works. It is designed to help those who are historically underrepresented as audiences access art / theatre, which is prohibitively expensive. This is not a deal - it belongs in the Forums as a community notice.

    • chrisie on 08/06/2023 - 19:38
      +1

      Yes I agree.

    • Be careful on 09/06/2023 - 01:59

      It is clearly a deal as ppl can save money.
      Since when is saving 50% not a deal.
      Some ozbargain ears get excited over a 5 cent saving

  • bemybubble on 08/06/2023 - 18:51
    +8

    Here’s a polarising deal if there ever was one.

  • DeepPocketsShortArms on 08/06/2023 - 18:56
    +2

    Doesn't seem fair.

  • AircraftFreight on 08/06/2023 - 18:59
    +3

    Deal sponsored by the Labor Government Canberra

    • Be careful on 09/06/2023 - 02:00

      I.e. taxpayers?

  • Shekster on 08/06/2023 - 19:04
    +22

    Targeted

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 20:04
      +1

      Targeted

      LOLOLOL, hilarious! Sometimes the shortest comments are the funniest …

  • mr_me450 on 08/06/2023 - 19:05
    +6

    All this outcry of ‘racism’ for a few half price tickets and zero outrage over the actual racism faced by indigenous people every day. You guys sure know how to pick your battles.

    • Spets on 08/06/2023 - 19:08
      +10

      Name one type of racism that indigenous peoples face that other races don’t also face? People can be assholes to everyone. The indigenous are not isolated victims.

      • AircraftFreight on 08/06/2023 - 19:10
        +4

        Nor do they deserve special treatment, just because they are the "traditional owners" of this land - the British colonized Australia and after 1788 Australia was turned into what we have today.

        • ninohax on 08/06/2023 - 19:33
          -2

          They do it was their land. British Invaded, Killed, looted and took everything away from them, kept them as third class citizens. At least have the courtesy to acknowledge that.

          • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 20:14
            +9

            @ninohax:

            At least have the courtesy to acknowledge that.

            Okay ninners, at least have the courtesy to acknowledge this:

            Before the British 'invaded, killed, looted and took everything away from them', they were doing those very same things to each other. This is a truth that many pinko non-indigenous peeps find 'inconvenient' and often try to erroneously deny, but Australian aboriginal peeps themselves unreservedly acknowledge and are completely at one with.

            You may find 'Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony' (by RB Edgerton) an interesting read.

          • zombrex on 08/06/2023 - 20:18
            +2

            @ninohax: The arrival of disaese was the biggest factor in the reduction of the Aborginal population.

            It is interesting if you read the accounts of Sydney Cove settlement. Aborginal poeple would camp on the govenors lawn and wait to recieve free hand outs of salted meat and bread everyday. The convicts and soldiers complained how unfair it was people making no contribution were taking handouts.

      • ninohax on 08/06/2023 - 19:31
        -3

        What exact type of racism does the 'Whites' face? Care to explain?

        • Musiclover on 08/06/2023 - 19:52
          +8

          Sure, I was called a white c**nt in Cairns many many times. This was not provoked in any way whatsoever.
          Sometimes, when people hear my accent they tell me to go back to my own country. I am white.

          • zombrex on 08/06/2023 - 20:30
            +1

            @Musiclover: Common in Melbourne too.
            Literally people screaming it in the street (no response from police) or abusing passers by because they didn't donate money to beggars.

          • bargainhunter on 08/06/2023 - 20:59

            @Musiclover:

            white c**nt

            White count?

            • Musiclover on 08/06/2023 - 21:03
              +1

              @bargainhunter: Yes, the The White Count of Monte Cristo as Cairns streeties called me. Or they really like to extend that sound in the middle of the word… You may guess.

            • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 21:58
              +1

              @bargainhunter: Probably white currant; as opposed to a black one.

    • Duece1995 on 08/06/2023 - 19:40

      Lol. What racism? All a media beat up.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 20:24
        +3

        Hey Bigalow, re:

        'Lol. What racism?

        This is about as clear a case of blatant racism as you could possibly get. Imagine the instant cries of racism that would erupt if the races were switched; i.e. 'half price tickets if you're not an Australian aboriginal' … or 'Australian aboriginals must pay double'.

    • Almost Banned on 12/06/2023 - 17:25

      If it helps, I'm against racism with indigenous people too.
      However, most racism for indigenous people actually helps them - like preferential university positions, employment, health and legal services…

  • [Deactivated] on 08/06/2023 - 19:08
    +7

    Discounted tickets based on economic circumstances are fine. Why does Stan Grant, with a net worth of $9m, need discounted tickets?

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 20:27
      +2

      Exactly this. It should be half price tickets for holders of certain (or all) government-issued concession cards. Some races should not be required to pay twice the amount that other races are required to pay. That is virtually the definition of racism.

  • naman8913 on 08/06/2023 - 19:21
    -6

    Indigenous people were here first, this is their land. Yes, racism is more widespread but everyone else migrated here. Just a deal but shows how shallow some can be to see those disadvantaged for centuries get some extra benefits.

    • spackbace on 08/06/2023 - 19:23
      +4

      And how can a ticketing company confirm the customer is 100% aboriginal or TSI?

      Coz surely you'd need 100% bloodline to make that first sentence reasonable?

    • Frunk on 08/06/2023 - 19:28
      +12

      Indigenous people migrated here, too, from South Asia, displacing whoever or whatever was here before them.

      • zombrex on 08/06/2023 - 20:24

        Overlooked part of history.
        And we will never know the full history because whenever artifacts are found we are forced to rebury them.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 20:48
        +1

        Yo Frunko cozzo, re:

        'Indigenous people migrated here, too, from South Asia, displacing whoever or whatever was here before them.'

        Many moons ago I wondered about this. Specifically, I wondered whether, if it became widely known that Australian Aboriginals had in fact 'invaded' another species of homonids (Homo erectus, etc.) ~70,000 years ago and wiped them out/displaced them, would that change the whole tone of the 'white invasion' debate?

        So I looked into it, and back then I concluded that all published reports available at the time (from sources such as the Australian National Museum et al.) indicated that there was no evidence of any homonid species ever having been living in Australia prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens, ~70,000 years ago. I assume that no such evidence has since emerged, because if it had that would have been really big news/I would have heard about it.

        So in summary, available evidence suggests that Australian aboriginies were the first homonid species to ever live in Australia.

        Much evidence suggests that they rapidly wiped out all the mega-fauna upon arrival, but I guess we can't hold that against them. That was the way things were done back then.

        • Frunk on 08/06/2023 - 20:56
          +3

          Hold something against a race of people for the way things were done 'back then'? Who would ever do that? What an awful concept.

        • Be careful on 09/06/2023 - 02:14

          …or it might have been hushed up if it was. I think there were pygmies in PNG originally. Besides do Neanderthals count anyway?

          • GnarlyKnuckles on 09/06/2023 - 02:38

            @Be careful: Of course Neanderthals count. In my book, all hominid species count. They were all intelligent to a degree way above the bonobo chimp, and socially inclined. Some of the stuff I've read suggests that Neanderthals may have been quite easily wiped out by other hominid species because they were inclined to attempt to live peacefully. In other words, like dodos, perhaps they were 'overly trusting' of other (particularly homonid) species.

            Now, here is a quote from a report published by the Australian Museum that is sure to set a cat amongst the pigeons/upset the cart a little bit. I'll leave it up to individuals who are genuinely interested in the subject to research further/form their own opinions on what it means, because if I supply mine any number of slack-jawed idiots are certain to descend upon me with quixotic vitriolic comments and endless negs.

            'Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians carry about 3-5 % of Denisovan DNA.'

    • zombrex on 08/06/2023 - 20:23
      +6

      The idea that the first people on a land are the ones that own it has never been recognised throughout world history.

      It has always been the the peoples who have the resources and means to assert there authority over the land. This is the history of the entire the world.

      The aborginal people themselves fought amongst each other for control of the land and resources. It is a modern view to view them as one entity when they were diverse tribes with different cultures and languages. They fought amongst each other the same as the europeans did.
      But for them we apply the "innocent bunny sitting in the field" philosophy which is a modern idealistic and arguably racist view of history.

    • tabboo on 08/06/2023 - 20:30
      +3

      People forget in the 1700s, you lost a war for being weaker, you lost you land… Those were the times, and unfortunately they did the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight and got destroyed

  • Adriftx on 08/06/2023 - 19:24
    -1

    This is how the caste racism started in India. Lower caste has quotas, cheap and easy entry to everything and people in upper caste hates them as they can't do this. The current politically correct mob in Australia knows this and will create more racism than reducing it.

    • Agent Q on 08/06/2023 - 19:50
      -2

      Caste racism in India started because someone offered half price tickets to a festival that most people dont really care about at all?

      Amazing.

      As an upper class person, I'm happy to help out those less fortunate than myself.

      It's called not being a dick.

      Thankyou.

      • R00D on 08/06/2023 - 20:41
        +1

        Sounds as though there's a whole lot of people less fortunate than yourself. What is it you're able to do for people in order for you to feel content in sharing your 'upper class' status within a forum such as this?

      • Motek Benzona on 08/06/2023 - 21:58
        +1

        Upper class!!! Well la di da sir probably not upper class at all.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 22:06
        +2

        Hey secret agent toff, have you ever heard the phrase 'being a bit of a dick'?

        I humbly invite you to re-read your post above, then ruminate on that phrase for a few seconds …

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 08/06/2023 - 19:52
      +2

      Ummm to be fair, caste system is racism in itself. If India didn't have the backwards caste system, those currently in lower castes would have no grounds for needing it. Upper castes can hardly complain about a few crumbs to the people they're paying a pittance to do all the work.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 21:12
      +1

      Hey adders I take your point about perpetuating ill-feeling between groups, but note that a caste is not a race; so the term 'caste racism' makes no logical sense to me.

      As a bit of an aside, I am frankly surprised by the fact that the world seems to accept India's inherently grossly inequitable caste system, whereas a very similar, albeit race-based system that used to operate in South Africa (apartheid) was actively decried by the western world until it was abolished.

    • Be careful on 09/06/2023 - 02:11

      U r correct. India was messing around with quotas decades ago with much grief. The west took those ideas and ran with it.

  • lost1thong on 08/06/2023 - 19:37
    +12

    Vote No

  • Duece1995 on 08/06/2023 - 19:39
    +2

    Reverse racism

  • Chichiwu on 08/06/2023 - 19:47
    +4

    Thats racist

  • beefsandwich on 08/06/2023 - 19:53
    -1

    Thanks op, looks really interesting

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 22:09

      Looks really like racism. Because it is.

  • DrScavenger on 08/06/2023 - 19:56

    Wonder if the voting results reflect the outcome of voice

    • chrisie on 08/06/2023 - 19:57

      Does it need 75% to get up ?

      • Almost Banned on 12/06/2023 - 17:26

        No - just a majority of votes in a majority of states.

  • Cave Fire on 08/06/2023 - 19:56

    Divide and conquer/Bread and Circus (literally in this case).

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 21:25

      I'm intrigued by your comment caveman, what is 'bread and circus' a reference to? I tried Googling it, but got a bunch of random hits ranging from school canteen websites to festivals, etc. This one seems the most likely, is it what you were alluding to?:

      "Bread and circuses" is a metonymic phrase referring to superficial appeasement. It is attributed to Juvenal, a Roman poet active in the late first and early second century CE, and is used commonly in cultural, particularly political, contexts.

      • Cave Fire on 08/06/2023 - 21:29

        More like the verb, Eg, use divide and conquer, then provide bread and circus/distractions.

        • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/06/2023 - 21:53

          Ah okay … I have not heard that turn of phrase before. I'm enlightened.

  • Kikiriki on 08/06/2023 - 19:58
    +7

    Without a clear definition of indigenous, there is nothing stopping anyone from appropriating indigenous identity and taking advantage of the privileges it affords. If the Voice to Parliament succeeds it will be filled with self-rightous greens claiming to speak for Aboriginals causing more harm than good for them. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is the voice of reason in all of this.

  • R00D on 08/06/2023 - 20:06
    +4

    Unless there's clear KPIs on how the Voice will help the indigenous people in tangible ways, vote NO. In other words, vote NO.
    There should be key performance indicators and it should be a 3-5yr trial. If the indicators aren't met, it's disbanded. No, they don't want responsibility or a genuine purpose they want more bureaucracy, money and political power. The Voice will do nothing for the average Australian indigenous.

    • Kikiriki on 08/06/2023 - 21:55
      +1

      KPI's from politicians is too much to ask for.

  • johfac on 08/06/2023 - 20:08
    +6

    It's because of things like this deal it just devides the country even more, and don't get me started on the voice l need to get a good night sleep.

  • Repstar on 08/06/2023 - 20:22
    +5

    Its a no from me (for the deal + the voice vote)

  • tabboo on 08/06/2023 - 20:27
    +10

    Let's have a half price discount for white caucasian people, and see how long that lasts…

  • BBF on 08/06/2023 - 20:35
    +5

    Adding my voice to the no vote.
    This is discrimination. This sort of nonsense has no place in Australia.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join