Do you even know a Jew?

I have tried to write this several times but perhaps I should just ask that question. How many of you who read this today even know a Jew - or know that you know one?

I have Jewish friends, good friends. They work. They pay taxes. They are law abiding citizens. They help their neighbours. We could stand in the middle of the supermarket aisles and chat like everyone else. Nobody else would even know they were Jewish.

I have been into their synagogues and been made welcome, indeed very welcome, there. They have come to marriages and funerals for my family too. More than once we have joined hands around a table laden with food and given thanks for being there. I have worked with them on complex humanitarian emergency projects where those in need are people of another faith altogether. 

The Jews I know are quite simply good, ordinary citizens attempting to get on with their lives like everyone else. Why anyone would want to harm them is beyond all reasonable comprehension. So why are sixteen people now dead when they should have been enjoying a party on the beach to celebrate Hanukkah? It makes no sense at all. 

Am I surprised this has happened? No, not at all. I am angry, very angry. I feel physically ill. I am trying not to cry. State and federal governments have been allowing "marches for Palestine" for many months now. The demands of the organisers have become greater as time has gone on. Politicians have joined the marches, including the one across the iconic bridge on the east coast. Such marches cost a great deal to police and control so that participants can safely attend. We are asked to be tolerant of all this.

There has also been harm done to synagogues and Jewish businesses and a Jewish school has been targetted. These acts have been "condemned" but they do not receive the same news coverage. There is the curious assumption made that all Jews support the actions of the Israeli government. They do not. The Jewish population is also considered to be too small, too insignificant for it to matter very much.

But, it does matter. Sixteen people have now lost their lives because, despite the warnings given, two people were able to open fire on a group of people they had almost certainly never met. That level of hatred is beyond comprehension. 

There are people of all faiths and no faith at all who will condemn what happened yesterday. It is worth remembering that we will pass them in the street and never know who they are or what they believe.  

 

  

"Who is paying for that?"

Is a question we should probably all ask more often. 

The water supply in this group of units is "communal". In other words we all pay an equal amount per unit. It does not matter if there are one, two or more people living in the individual unit.

I am water conscious anyway and I can take very short showers. I can wash my hair under the shower faster than most people take a regular shower. I can do it because I have spent much of my life living in places where there has been very little water available.

There is no garden to speak of here. One or two people have pot plants and one person has a patch of "lawn" as opposed to the grass the rest of us deal with. No, she does not pay any extra for the extra water she uses to water her patch of lawn. I have not spoken to her about this and I doubt I ever will. 

Why? It probably is cowardice and a belief that it is better to get on with your neighbours, especially if you barely know them. I recognise her in context but would I recognise her in a crowd? It is unlikely. 

But what about our politicians and their expenses? Those expenses are in the news right now. Yes, I know we have a big land mass and that our federal government is a long distance from this state. It is considered "tough" on politicians to be away from their families when parliament is sitting. There are "perks" relating to their roles which allow them to see family at times other than when parliament is not sitting. These are seen as important, especially if they have young families. Yes, it is a complex issue.

But I do not believe that taking your family on holiday at taxpayer expense or flying your partner in for a sports match at taxpayer expense is right. Nor do I believe that "first class" everything is necessary on all trips. Even if it is essential for you is it also essential for your family?

I have been "wined and dined" so to speak by people who might be considered "VIPs". It is not something I have ever sought or wanted. The occasions have varied from lunch in the dining room of parliament house to a sandwich in a tiny private garden at the rear of a courthouse to a grand dinner at which we were all expected to dress in our best. I have had afternoon tea in a palace and breakfast in another one. 

All the occasions have produced useful results or useful contacts but the sandwich occasion was perhaps the most useful. What is more the sandwich did not go on any sort of expense account. I am sure it could have done but my host did not see that as necessary. We were simply there to do some work. 

There are undoubtedly occasions for "first class and fine dining" but I often wonder if there are times when a sandwich might produce more results.  

An extra three days of paid leave

can now be accessed by aboriginal staff at one of this country's major universities. It is to "help them cope with the perceived ongoing impacts of colonisation". The university introduced the new "colonial load" leave days to "recognise the 'unique' contributions of Indigenous staff" and said these staff members carry "an often invisible workload that is deeply impactful".

Aboriginal staff at that university already get an additional five days of paid leave not available to others. They can also take an additional ten days unpaid "ceremonial" leave without penalty so they can prepare for and attend cultural events. 

In order to do this staff only need to state they are "indigenous". There is no proof required.  

Apparently there are additional workplace pressures placed on indigenous staff and this helps to overcome those pressures. If that really is the case then perhaps the university in question is to be commended for the response.

There seems to be a belief that everything the university now does in all departments has to be done with "indigenous culture and heritage" in mind.  This is how "systemic change" is achieved "with recognition, respect and action".

But where does this stop? This is the same university which demands all students, no matter what they are studying, complete a unit which covers indigenous issues. That may also sound like a good thing but is it really?  Surely it depends on what that unit covers? Is it fair and balanced? 

The university is in a state which has just signed a "treaty" between indigenous people and the government on behalf of the other residents of the state. I watched some of the "indigenous" people being interviewed and heard their claims and their hopes for the future. Yet again I was left worried that I am "racist" because I could not see that everyone involved was "indigenous". I could not see how they could be so disadvantaged by events that may or may not have happened more than two hundred years ago. Their own ancestors on both sides of the issue must have been involved but it seems I am being asked to disregard this.

Is there something wrong with me or is there a whiff of a benefit in being some sort of "victim" here? 

 

Indigenous deaths in custody

 were a news item on our SBS news service last night. For those of you who do not live in Downunder I need to explain that SBS is a slightly different news service. It has a greater focus on international, multicultural and indigenous affairs. It partners with NITV - the National Indigenous Television network - and such news items are quite frequent.

This particular news item however bothered me. Any news item about deaths in custody bother me but I sensed something wrong with this one. I was right.

The item gave the very strong impression that indigenous deaths in custody far exceeded the rate of other deaths in custody.  There were the usual interviews with people who told us how wrong this was and how there needed to be more support services, especially mental health services, for indigenous people in custody. How the laws needed to be changed to prevent incarceration was also mentioned.

What was not mentioned was the fact that indigenous people are actually less likely to die in custody than non-indigenous people. Yes, the rate of death is too high because any preventable death in custody is too high. The rate of indigenous people in custody is too high too. 

I spoke to my friend M... He dealt with indigenous offending for most of his working life. Although now retired he keeps himself informed. Yes, he had heard the news item and, like me, did not like the impression it conveyed. He had also seen the latest statistics from the Institute of Criminology and sent them over to me.

Indigenous people make up almost forty percent of the prison population. They make up about thirty percent of deaths in custody. There were one hundred and thirteen deaths in custody last financial year. Of those thirty-three were indigenous deaths in custody. 

The number of people who identify as "indigenous" has been rising quite rapidly. Yes, there are advantages to identifying as indigenous. Yes, there are people who are abusing that. People who identify as indigenous or "aboriginal" or "islander" make up around four percent of the population. They should make up about that proportion of the prison population too but they are heavily over represented in it. The reason they are heavily over represented is because of the rate of offending. The rate of incarceration is high despite the fact that, by identifying as indigenous, people have access to special legal representation. There are different guidelines involved in their sentencing. There is even their own court system for many offences where "cultural" and other issues can be taken into account.  

With all that the rates of offending and incarceration are still higher. Activists keep telling us this is a "national crisis"  because of our colonial past and a lack of support services, including mental health services.  That an increasing number of repeat offenders are now being held on domestic violence and other violent crimes is, we are told, due to external failures and not a result of the actions of those in custody. We are being told they are victims too.

The news item gave this impression. It gave the impression that there are many more indigenous deaths in custody and that all these deaths might have been preventable. It again suggested there was a need for special consideration of this group of offenders and that more funding was needed to deal with the issues. 

Nowhere was it suggested that the behaviour of some of these offenders might be the issue. Nobody mentioned the harm some of them have done, harm not against the "white" community they claim is responsible but the harm done to their own community particularly their partners. 

All this makes it so much harder for indigenous youth who are trying to be law abiding and make something of themselves. I know one young indigenous man who has spent the past year working very hard. He will shortly get his Year 12 results and I hope he does well. He is not "brilliant" but he is intelligent. It has been a tough year for him. He has had to live away from his family to finish school. There has been a lot of pressure on him to "succeed". His immediate family are law abiding citizens but he knows this will not bring about personal success. 

We talked about the offending issues earlier this year. He was troubled by them and acknowledged some of the issues but he also told me, "It is up to us though. It doesn't have to be like that."  

 

I have done nothing about Christmas

apart from make Christmas cake. That was actually done a few weeks ago.

Yesterday my cousin shamed me by handing over a lovely Christmas card. (It was a winter one with a robin on it.) Cards? I will need to send electronic cards and an electronic letter. Sigh!

The time I had set aside for all these things has been taken up with things like sending the "bikies" off to Aceh with their updated communication board and spending a day at the Youth Court with the little idiot who lost his temper and did so much damage. Now I need to spend some time cleaning. (My little abode does not look too bad but I will feel more comfortable knowing I have cleaned it properly.) 

I am also awaiting more parcels. "Cat, you are mostly at home. Can I get the parcel delivered to you so the kids don't know?" Yes of course they "may" and I dutifully agree to be in so this can be done. I know how important Christmas surprises can be for small children.

I saw a former neighbour's eldest child in the shopping centre several days ago. She starts secondary school next year. "Cat! It's holidays next week!" was all she was interested in as she told me how they were heading off to the beach shack they have rented for most of the summer. I was reminded of how we looked forward to days at the beach as much as we looked forward to Christmas. Now I will be lucky to get to the beach at all. It is not just the algal bloom along the coast but finding a free day to get there.

If Middle Cat and I can go off to the hardware store before Christmas it will solve most problems. It is just a matter of both of us being free at the same time.  

Brother Cat is having ankle surgery today. While not looking forward to that he informed me, "At least it gets me out of all the Christmas fuss. I can get some reading done." He might. I hope he does. His "to be read" pile is not as high as mine but it is still in danger of falling over. Still, it does seem a rather drastic way of finding time to read. 

  

"Dot art" from the

desert is not "traditional" indigenous art. 

I had the difficult job of explaining this to someone yesterday. He very proudly showed me something he claimed was "aboriginal and done before white settlement". He paid a great deal of money for it. He has also been nicely conned.

"Aboriginal dot paintings" are now so widely believed to be traditional indigenous art it is unlikely most people will ever believe anything else. It is sold to tourists as being traditional. People are led to believe it has been tradition for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They are also led to believe that the patterns created are of special significance, that stories are being told and much more.

None of this is true. It is not true but people are still paying thousands of dollars for the paintings in the belief that these things are true. They are paying in the belief they are getting something more than an original art work.

Yes, some of those pieces are beautiful in their own way. It takes considerable skill and patience to do them. Those things need to be recognised. It also needs to be recognised that this is not a tradition which goes back thousands of years. There are no mysterious beliefs and stories attached to these works.

Their origin goes back to 1971 when a young teacher named Geoffrey Bardon went to work in Papunya, a small indigenous community in the desert. It is about three hours by road from Alice Springs. 

Bardon was interested in the way the elders told stories. They were drawing designs in the sand with their fingers and then wiping it over again. The designs were simple but Bardon realised they were illustrating the story. He set about getting the children at the school to paint a mural on the walls of the school. It was a success and he went on encouraging the children to draw in the same simple way. The elders began to do the same but they quickly realised the more permanent nature of these things meant they could not include some information, There were things those outside their own tribal group simply should not be told. Bardon was aware of that and he  encouraged them to put dots in the picture instead. 

This is where the "art" started. Pictures which consist entirely of dots, like the one I saw yesterday, are not "traditional". They do not tell a story and, even if they did, it would not be told to a "whitey". Many of the stories now told are not traditional either. They may sound as if they are and they may have their roots in traditional stories but the traditional stories are not there for the ears of those outside the group. 

What the person showing me the picture has bought is about a hundred years old.  If you like that sort of thing then it is a fine example of it. It is not however some hundreds of years old and, at almost $10,000 he has paid too much for it.  

The Most Travelled Government Funded

Frequent Flyer Award is apparently likely to go to the Ambassador for First Nations People. He is paid $400,000 a year for what seems to be a role which has, in two and a half years, required no less than forty-six overseas trips. In that time has been absent from the country for two hundred and sixty one days. The trips are funded in addition to that very handsome salary. That has come in at around $340,000. The Ambassador also has a staff of ten at a cost of $13m over four years. They also need to do some travelling. That has cost another $750,000 to date.

All this is apparently necessary to "progress Indigenous rights globally and help grow First Nations trade and investment". An Advanced Diploma of Business Management is apparently what qualifies the Ambassador to do this work.

There is also another fund he can dip into for others to attend meetings to "lift the participation of First Nations people in international meetings". That is a mere $1.25m. 

The article in this morning's paper was written by someone who is clearly not impressed by all this. The writer then goes on to talk about the expense sheets of the Energy Minister and the Communications Minister. We apparently do not need to be told about the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Their taxpayer funded absences are frequently mentioned in the media.

Then there is the "creative" mob - those who are supposed to provide grants to "artists, creatives and organisations, including large investments like the Creative Futures Fund (Development & Delivery streams), music-focused grants (Record Label Dev, Marketing & Mfg), international travel/market funds, and specific streams for First Nations artists". While you are at it toss in a tiny amount of support for deaf and disability projects.

I suppose all this has come about because there are no longer "lords of the manor" who fund the arts and see to it that those starting out in business gets some help when they first need it - to later be paid back via their taxes.  

The writer of the article then asks about Zoom meetings and more. I know a thing or two about Zoom meetings. No, they are not the same as face to face meetings but you can get a lot of work done - often at odd hours of the day. Even so there is a lot to be said for Zoom meetings. They are much cheaper to run - and there is no need to catch a plane. 

  

There was such a simple solution

to implementing the law banning under 16s from social media. All it would have taken was a ban on owning a phone which could access it. 

Yes, there are phones which allow you to do no more than make and receive calls, make and receive text messages and even get alerts or alert others for reasons of safety. Just as the government has provided many young people with other devices on which to do their schoolwork they could have seen to this. 

What if they had provided young people with bright yellow, lime green, orange or pink phones that could do only these things? It would have been easy to see if a young person was using a phone that only had the capacity for these things. 

Yes, there would be a cost involved but the cost of implementing the law would have been placed where it should have been placed. It would have been on parents and the government, on us as taxpayers. Those young people who already have phones could have been required to hand them until that magical sixteenth birthday and provided with the lesser device.

There is a growing belief that the new law is not simply about protecting young people from the harm of social media but about something more sinister than that. I have talked at length with two politicians who admit that the idea of being able to monitor everyone all the time would be very valuable if you want to remain in government. It would provide an excellent control mechanism if news could be filtered out or in on all electronic devices.

We already have a compliant media, indeed the major news sources are claiming credit for having the ban brought in. They are saying it is about "safety", as if lack of access to social media will prevent bullying. It won't of course. It may even cause greater harm to be done to some. It won't stop predators either. They will find other ways to ply their vile trade - as they have done for centuries.

The size of the fines if the "big tech" companies do not comply is perhaps the clearest indication that the law is about more than the safety of young people. This is about the government trying to wrest back control, about them being able to view everything we do. 

I have no time for the likes of Elon Musk but the fine the EU has imposed should be ringing alarm bells...particularly when they went ahead and tried to use the very system they were complaining about to their own advantage.   

A "Christmas Tree Festival"

as a fundraiser for the hills community fire service and other charities has proven to be a success again.

It was held yesterday and is on again today.  I caught the train up into the hills behind me so I could give the friend running it some support. J... is one of the most hardworking and community minded people I know. She also gets very little recognition for her efforts. 

The little festival consists of about fifty trees decorated by community groups. Santa Claus is there - with the reindeer made from environmentally sound logs of fallen timber. There are some trees for sale as well as some plants. There are activities for children (and I saw some lovely "hats" made by them). When you are exhausted by all this there are inevitable tea, coffee and scones. 

I am not really into the business of decorating my own establishment with trees and lights. It is just me. Why bother? But.... another friend and I put our heads together and thought we might be able to contribute something. We have done it twice before. Each time we have tried to think of something different.

This time several people in the knitting and crochet group at the library contributed crochet circles. I made about thirty of these, all about 12cms across.  G...embroidered them and turned them into "smiley" faces. They have been hung on a tree. The circles I made were all in brilliant neon colours. I knew the room would be dim (to give the illusion of night) and I wanted the circles to show up. They looked good. I am glad we did it because I watched children's faces light up as they saw the "smiles". G...had made a few with the extra addition of ears so that they could be bears (or koala bears or mice)  and the youngest children really seemed to like those best. On being given one of the bears one fractious toddler clung tightly to it and fell asleep!

There should be more of this sort of thing. The tree decorated with tiny houses made from scraps of timber and another decorated with paper people made by a junior primary class showed there is still plenty of skill and imagination out there. We need more of that sort of thing.      

"I need to go to Aceh"

the voice at the other end of the phone told me.

I suppose I should not have been surprised - except that the caller is now closer to eighty than sixty. He has been up there three times now. The first was just after the 2004 tsunami. 

I don't think I will ever forget my first contact with the small group of men who went off to help rebuild a shattered community in a remote Indonesian area. They were about the most unlikely volunteers possible. 

I thought they were being utterly irresponsible. I sat down to talk to them to try and dissuade them from going. At the end of the conversation I was ready to help. They had thought things through. They were taking everything they needed, not just tools but food and shelter. They were strong and healthy. They had the skills to do what they planned to do. They had a specific goal they wanted to achieve - and then they were getting out again. 

These men did the job they planned to do and then they left. They have been back since and done similar work. They have always gone and returned quietly. The last thing they want is publicity and I will respect their wishes except to say, "I wish there were more like you." 

All of them looked like members of the toughest sort of motorcycle gang. Those who remain still look rather like that. I saw two of them yesterday and got some rather odd looks from passers by as we sat in a cafe and talked about their plans. Yes, their communication boards need a bit of updating but there are people there now who speak some English and that will help. 

They are going up to help with the repair of an essential building that can be used as accommodation while other things are repaired.  It is a testament to their earlier work that this is one of the buildings which is still standing. They built it from debris in 2004. They will also show some of the young people there how to repair a footbridge over one of the many rivers. That was built on another visit. It will allow aid to get across much more quickly even if it has to be done by handcart. 

I ask about how long they plan to be there, about their other arrangements. This time I know they will have all these things organised. Their flights and other travel plans have already been arranged. Who is paying? They are - with some help from their families. This is their Christmas gift to each other and a community they have come to know. 

No, I cannot contribute anything else. I am, according to them, "doing (my) bit". Perhaps I am but it is nothing like their contribution.

The cafe owner brings my trike in from where he has put it safely "out back". It's a rather rough area of the city. They walk back to the station with me. Their handshakes are firm as they see me safely on to the train.    

Yes, some of the most unlikely looking men from rough backgrounds but I admire them.  

 

  

Holding water in a sieve

is not possible is it? You might catch a drop or two. The sieve might appear to be damp. That will be about it. 

The "age verification" process for removing under 16s from social media looks like being about as useful. It has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese - and Swiss cheese is a great deal more useful. 

The onus for removing young people from social media has been put on the "big tech" companies. They have been warned they will be hit with massive fines if they do not comply.

But is it possible to comply? Is it really possible to comply? The answer of course is that it is not possible. This morning's paper contains a story of a boy who went through the "age verification" process. His face was scanned. He is fourteen and the verification process tells us he is twenty-five. 

Last night there was a fifteen year old interviewed on the news. He was quite frank about the fact that he intends to lie about his age. It is likely he has already done so. 

He won't be the only one. I overheard a bunch of giggling girls telling each other how they have already bypassed the ban by using make up to "look older". I imagine it was very easy to do. 

Teenagers will not meekly give in to this ban. They will find ways around it and there is a major problem with that fact. If they are using social media then they will now be doing it in contravention of the law.  Bullying won't stop. Telling others about bullying is going to be more difficult if it also involves the illegal use of a device.

Rather than put the onus on the tech giants it should have been put on young people and their parents. It should have been made illegal for under 16s to own a phone which can do more than make and receive calls and text messages. 

Fake claims about being

"aboriginal" were raised yesterday. They came at the same time as I was watching a small girl running and rolling in the grass at the park next to the library. Her adopted grandmother stood there holding a bag of library books while her adopted grandfather pretended to chase her. It was a game and they were all enjoying it.

"She's having a wonderful time," I said to her grandmother who had given me the sort of smile which says,"This has to stop soon."

"It ends all too soon," she told me, "I wish they did not have to grow up and find out about the world."

I knew what she was talking about. The small girl is an inter-race placement. She is also disabled. There was an attempt to place her in an "aboriginal" family but it did not work. Nobody wanted to take on a child with two limbs missing. They did not want to deal with the many hospital appointments and other issues that will arise. 

This family has taken her on. She is starting school this coming year and is excited about it. I have often talked to her "mother" in the library. They are regular visitors there. 

"Time to go," her adopted grandfather said and there was a sigh but no argument. She eyed my bike seat longingly though. There have been several occasions on which she has been allowed to "ride" it - with me pushing her while she sits on the seat. If she learns to ride a bike it will be one she uses her arms to "pedal". 

After looking at me her adopted grandfather lifted her on to the seat and we set off to the car park. Then he took her off to put her in her child seat. 

"M...and A... have been told they could get some sort of bike for her to use but they don't want her to think she can have something for no effort. Not everyone agrees of course. They keep saying if she is aboriginal she should be able to get it. We keep being told "at least she looks aboriginal" but what is that really supposed to mean?"

"She just looks like a little girl to me," I said. It is true. She does. There is definitely some "aboriginal" heritage there and perhaps some Chinese too but she also has European ancestry. She is a very attractive child and, at present, a very happy one despite her problems. I doubt she is more than average intelligence but she loves stories and drawing and talking to dogs.  The idea that she should somehow be given something extra because of the colour of her skin seems wrong to them. If she needs a "bike" of some sort to keep up with her friends at school then that seems to be a more reasonable thing. It is an interesting point of view.   

A $2.4m payout made

as compensation to someone who would "never be able to work again" because she was allegedly raped has now dwindled to $50,000 after just three years.

Before anyone who know who I am talking about starts screaming at me "she was raped and she deserved every cent" let me say that, in law, it is still an allegation. It has not been "proven" in a court of law. It is unlikely it ever will be. 

There are two "standards of proof" here. One is "on the balance of probabilities" and the other is "beyond reasonable doubt". The first applies in civil cases and the second in criminal courses. It is much more difficult to reach the latter standard and rightly so. Once reached it can incarcerate people and could once have involved the death penalty. Get it wrong in the latter instance and you could end up putting an innocent person to death.

The criminal trial in this case was aborted twice. On one occasion it was because of juror misbehaviour but on the second it was said to be because of the distress it was causing the alleged victim. (Again I am using "alleged" because of lack of an outcome.) Then, quite suddenly, there was the huge payout in "compensation" for what had happened. It was paid because the alleged victim would no longer be able to work. She was said to be in a very fragile state. There were suggestions of suicidal thoughts and more.  We were told she did not get any support from her employer or one of her employer's staff. They were cast as uncaring and guilty of trying to cover it up. 

The saga has now dragged on for more than three years. It has been shown twice to be wrong but her employer is still being cast as the "bad guy". To do otherwise would bring into question that payout. It was made not by employer but by the present government. There has never been anything like it done before.  The payout was given with no strings attached and that alone should have rung alarm bells.

At very least the payout should have been put into a trust fund and spent very differently. It should have been conserved as far as possible until all matters had been resolved in the courts. When the alleged victim took up some employment then the funding should, at very least, have been reduced. She had shown herself capable of returning to work and returning in a very public role. She has married and done other things which suggest that her alleged fragile mental state has improved dramatically. 

On the other side people have been subject to serious defamation. They have had to fight their own battles with no financial support and, until now, no support in the media.There are still far too many people who are saying "serves her right" for allegedly failing to support the alleged victim. Even when the court has come down in their favour they are still being held responsible. 

They will go on being held responsible because the government of the day needs to be able to justify that payout. Some of those involved hold the highest positions in the land and to admit wrong doing could have extreme consequences.   

The whole episode stinks of corruption. There has been too much harm done. Whatever the consequences there needs to be an inquiry. We were the people who paid the compensation with our taxes. 

The "social media ban" for under 16s

is just over a week away. 

I have had my say about this here and elsewhere. There is a High Court challenge coming up. The case will argue the legislation trespasses on the constitutional implied right of freedom of political communication. It will be interesting to see what arguments are put.

There is also the issue of "digital ID". At the moment the onus is on the big tech companies to deal with the issue. It is unlikely the legislation would have passed if it had been any other way because that would have meant bringing in some form of identification for everyone in order to get the proposed ban in place. The failure to comply will bring about large financial penalties for the companies.

In reality this is the first step towards some form of universal means of identification. It is going to be even easier for the government of the day to effectively "spy" on all we do. 

Whenever I go into the largest supermarket in the shopping centre I am asked if I have a "loyalty" card. The answer is "no". At times I have been asked if I want one. The answer is "no". The same thing occurs in the bakery. 

"But you could get..." I am told. No, I could not. I am all too aware that even "paying by card" tells them what  my shopping pattern is. I do not need to be inundated with "offers" for items I do not want. If an under sixteen year old pays for something with a card or, more likely, a phone "app" then the business and the government already know what they are spending their money on.  They know a great deal more about them as well. 

I reluctantly opted out of a medical information site because I was not certain it was secure. There is nothing particularly wrong with my actual health and certainly nothing I am ashamed of. I may not be "sane" in the eyes of some people but I have never been sectioned or talked to a psychiatrist as a patient. (My experience with them socially has been more than enough.) All that said I have no particular desire to share the details of my medical history with the world and any site can be "hacked". 

I can see a situation where the information being demanded by tech companies in an effort to abide by the age-related legislation will be used for other purposes. Really? 

Some people will say that teens only have themselves to blame for the ban. If they had used social media in a responsible manner then this legislation would not have been necessary. Give me a break! We are talking about children and young people here. 

Perhaps we should be putting much more responsibility on parents?

Are one in twenty seven children "autistic"

or have they have been diagnosed as such in order to get funding for sometimes very real problems?

I am asking the question because apparently around $9bn of the $50bn or so spent NDIS programs went to supporting those with "autism". The number of those diagnosed with autism has apparently almost doubled in the last five years. The article in the paper is suggesting we are "getting better at diagnosing the problem, particularly in women and girls". Is that correct?

I watched a short video recently. It was taken by the mother of an autistic man. He is around twenty now and nobody could doubt he is very severely disabled. In a photograph it is possible you would not see anything wrong but the video tells a different story. He can do nothing for himself. He still puts everything in his mouth. He cannot go to the bathroom alone. He cannot dress himself. He has no speech. His "play" level is less than that of a two year old. At the same time he is a grown man with a beard. He gets violent. It is sometimes without apparent cause but often because he is frustrated. Living with him is a constant balancing act. It is exhausting. 

The NDIS is, quite rightly, intended to help people like him and his family. They need more help than they are getting but there is limited funding. When his mother can no longer cope he will probably end up in some form of "care", possibly drugged in order to keep his behaviour from being a danger to others.

What the NDIS is not there for is to provide assistance to children with mild behaviour issues or learning difficulties. All too often though this is the way it is being used. Children are being diagnosed as "autistic" in order to get help that should be available elsewhere. "Autistic" is seen as an acceptable label. It is more acceptable than "behaviour issues" or "learning issues".

I have no doubt at all that some of those "issues" are due to changes in the sort of world we now live in. They are also due to changes in the way we expect children to function in classrooms which are also very different. 

Not so long ago I had an unexpected conversation with someone who had worked under the Senior Cat's leadership. When the Senior Cat went to take over the headship of the school there was one of the then popular "classrooms" with four teachers in a large space. It was considered to be a good learning environment where children would learn to socialise and work together in teams. There were units like this all over the metropolitan area. The unit was the responsibility of the deputy headmaster. 

It was not working well. The teachers had volunteered to be there but they were struggling. Even the most able students were not coping well. Quite simply it was not a good learning environment. It was too noisy. There were too many distractions. The idea that children could be taught in large groups and then be divided into smaller groups to do the activities which followed was not working. Children were not listening. They were distracted by other things. The supposed "team work" and "socialisation" was not being achieved in the intended way.  There were more issues in the playground.

It was Education Department policy to have these units. There was the intention to eventually make all schools work to this model. Like many other educational experiments it was a policy which was eventually discarded at least in part.  There are still times where classes come together but it is not an all day and everyday policy. It is interesting that teachers now tell me some children do not cope well when they are in a larger group or when there is a big change in routine. They inevitably include the children who have been labelled as being "on the spectrum". 

There must be children who are falling behind early in their school lives because of the learning environment in which they find themselves at school and also at home. Being "distracted" or "fidgety" or "restless" or something else seen as unacceptable surely does not mean you are on that catch all autism spectrum. It might be that the learning environment in which you find yourself is not one which allows you to learn as easily, if at all. Would it help if we started looking at the problems from a different direction?