Is it time for "culture" change

 or do we go on doing what we keep being told is "right" and even "respectful" of indigenous culture? 

I am re-posting below the long and very obviously heartfelt "tweet" by someone who is both "indigenous" and in a position where she has been trying to represent other indigenous people in our federal parliament. I know, from talking to the indigenous people I have met, that they share similar concerns.  

@JNampijinpa

I would love nothing more than to be wrong about Indigenous issues. I would love to wake up tomorrow and find out that actually it was ‘colonisation’ all along and the government funding is fixing everything now. I would love it if the violence, the alcohol, the neglect, and the squalor in town camps and remote communities was all made up. I would love to be wrong because if I was, there’s a chance my niece Kumanjayi Little Baby would still be alive today. Instead, I’m left feeling numb about what happened to this innocent little girl who has been taken from us so young. Many of us are reeling from what happened last week. And from what they’ve seen about conditions in town camps in and around Alice Springs. They are shocked by reporting that suggests calls to child protection agencies were not acted upon. They are appalled at the total failure of the government to make a dent in the disadvantage and dysfunction in these communities despite all the money you could want. And many, like me, are angry that the Labor Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Malarndirri McCarthy, has responded by saying “now is not the time” for politics. Well, Minister, I’ve been shouting from the rooftops about this for years; was that not the time either? For this government, for the bureaucrats, for the inner-city activists and academics, is it ever the time? They should be honest with themselves. Do they ever want to look these issues in the face? I don’t think they do. Because if they did, they would have to face the fact that the death of Kumanjayi Little Baby happened because too much of the Indigenous affairs system has become focused on process, ideology and symbolism instead of protecting children at risk. They are too scared of being called racist to admit that the unwillingness to challenge harmful behaviours in the name of “culture” means they let children live in dangerous, dysfunctional camps that would not be tolerated anywhere else in the country. They are too scared that someone might call them racist and bring up past wrongs, like the stolen generations, to remove children in dangerous homes and put them into care. They are too scared of risking their grant funding or next promotion in their public service jobs to openly acknowledge that high rates of Indigenous incarceration might have to do with high rates of violence and sexual assaults in Indigenous communities. So no, I do not accept that “now is not the time” because this is what the dysfunction in Aboriginal communities actually looks like and we cannot look away. We cannot keep treating Indigenous People as though different standards should apply. The separatist approach has not worked. It has not worked and it will not work. Put away the victimhood and racial grievance and stop being scared. Just fix the problems. Put violent offenders in jail, regardless of race. Put kids in danger into safe homes, regardless of race. Clean up the camps and enforce the same standards we do in public housing, regardless of race. This isn’t hard, provided governments can find the courage. I hope and pray that they do, for the memory of Kumanjayi Little Baby. Time for REAL solutions.  

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Senator for the Northern Territory
Shadow Minister for Small Business
Shadow Minister for Skills and Training

This is coming from a Senator who is indigenous.  Is it time to listen to what she has to say? Will those with vested financial interests be heard instead?  Will anything change? 

 

 

We teach children it is wrong

to lie so how is it that the Prime Minister can do it?

One of the much younger generation asked me this yesterday. Their father had read out a piece listing items the Prime Minister had either lied about or "backflipped" on. I found the list and it is extensive.

There is the very well known one about how power prices would fall by  $275 because of "renewable" energy. Rebates were put in place when it was obvious this was not going to happen but even with rebates the price of energy has risen well beyond that.  The plug on rebates was pulled out at the end of 2025 and prices are now rising still higher. 

  There was the promise to keep the previous government's stage three tax cuts exactly as planned with no changes. They have been changed and restructured  but only to the government's income stream advantage.  

They promised no changes to superannuation and then introduced a new tax on balances over $3 million.  

They promised "real" wages would grow and rise above pre-election levels.  That has not happened.  

They promised extra water under Murray-Darling Basin Plan and delivered 5% of what they promised. 

 The promised Makarrata Commission for truth-telling and treaty has been abandoned after the Voice referendum failed.  

They promised no changes to negative gearing but are now going ahead with changes that will do nothing for housing policy but will severely disadvantage a generation which did not have access to compulsory superannuation benefits.

They promised the long-term immigration plan was locked in. It was not. They are bringing in more migrants who have been shown in other parts of the world not to integrate.  They are being placed in areas the government is desperate to retain at the next election with their right to citizenship being fast tracked.

To move these people around they are trying to secure less than the mandated fuel supply but are telling us that being "given" an extra day's supply came about because of the Prime Minister's diplomacy. 

They backflipped on removing sexuality, gender identity and sexual variation questions from 2026 census but refused to add two questions which would have greatly assisted housing and health planning.  They tried to refuse to run a Royal Commission into the Bondi terror attack and rising antisemitism. It was only under immense pressure they announced one. •  At the same time they got the hate speech legislation through by splitting the bill to get it through Parliament.  They have removed the RMIT ABC election promise tracker amid scrutiny over these broken promises.  

They are just some of the things they promised and have not delivered. They did this and promised a new era of transparency and open government plus FOI reform so laws couldn’t be flouted. FOI refusal rates have nearly doubled to 23 per cent and full disclosures are lower than ever before.

Lying is part of the political game but these are lies the government has continued to repeat and will go on repeating. The financial mess the country is now is apparently the fault of the war in the Middle East. The Treasurer is making "savings" that are not savings at all. He is simply going to tell us that they will be spending less and providing less than they would like. He will take from those who have worked longer and hardest to give to a generation who believe they can have right now what their parents and grandparents spent a lifetime working for. It is the youngest generation which is more likely to vote for them.

The "ISIS" brides due to return today

"will face the full extent of the law" and "will be arrested" - well, some of them will. They will "all be subjected to monitoring" - perhaps.

I keep wondering about this. I suspect these "ISIS" brides, women who went off to join their husbands in the Islamic State fight which failed are not all the same. 

Some of them will have gone out of a belief that the proposed caliphate would come about. They would have seen themselves as the wives of the leaders. They would have been ready to assume roles which gave them control over other women. They would have believed they would eventually be leading lives where they controlled not just other Muslim women but all women. These women would be hard line radicals. I have no doubt that at least one of those returning to this country will be in that category. She will still be a believer in these things. Given the opportunity she would do it again and believe that doing it "differently" would mean success the next time.

Then there will be others who will still believe it was right to go. They won't see it as a failure but a setback. The conditions there may have been appalling but they will believe that this is necessary in order to get to heaven.

There will be others who believe varying shades of both these things.

And there will be women who went because they had no choice. They had married, often by family arrangement, the men they went to join. They were told that not to go would bring shame on their families and the families of the men who went. They will have been taken out of school at the earliest possible age. They are not well educated. All their lives they have lived under the control of their fathers, their brothers and their husbands. To a lesser extent they have also been controlled by their mothers and then their mothers-in-law. They will have submitted to sex whenever it was required of them. They will have had multiple children and be expected to bring them up in the same traditions. 

This group will go on believing all this is right because this is what they have always been told. Changing those beliefs will be impossible. They may appear to do so. They may try but those beliefs will always be there.

Monitoring all these women, their children and grandchildren will cost millions of dollars every year for many years to come. Those who are citizens of this country have the right of return. How we handle the situation is going to be a test for all of us.  

   

Do we need another "Intervention"?

The "Intervention" was a government initiative of the early 2000's. It involved taking over some of the welfare payments being made to some indigenous people and leaving a smaller amount for discretionary spending.  It involved bringing in alcohol free zones. Some welfare payments were tied to school attendance. There was a greater police presence in some indigenous areas.

The plan was supported federally by both Labor and the Coalition but it was opposed by the state Labor government and Human Rights Commissions. It was also supported by many indigenous elders.

These "interventions" were also heavily criticised by people who claimed "indigenous people have the right to self-determination". They claimed that the result was increased levels of incarceration for those who would not abide by the measures.  That the measures did result in lower levels of domestic violence and increased school attendance was not seen as a measure of success. It was claimed there were "other" ways of helping indigenous people. The measures were dropped and there has been an increase in domestic violence issues. Alcohol related issues have increased. School attendance is down. There are more instances of children not being even adequately cared for.

Should those measures have been kept in place? There are still people arguing that they were wrong, that this is not how indigenous affairs should be handled. 

These arguments are being made even while billions (yes, billions - not millions) of taxpayer dollars are being spent for no measurable improvements. Argue that the reverse is true and we are told it is the fault of "the system" - whatever that is. We are told that indigenous people need "greater" rather than lesser control over their own affairs.

Is that working? No it is not. It will not work. Handing more control to indigenous "leaders" has been shown over and over again not to work. The latest horrific (and it really is horrific) murder of a young child came about partly because of this. The child had been the subject of repeated welfare reports. Nothing was done. The police were involved. Nothing was done. She slept on a mattress in the "living room" of a house not really fit for human habitation. Not so long ago it had been a new dwelling that, appropriately cared for, was more than adequate. The child's grandfather is head of an indigenous housing organisation and is reportedly receiving a very high income. Everything suggests this child should have been safe, well housed and well cared for but she was not. What is more it was considered so "normal" by the authorities they did not intervene. 

Yes, it sounds "racist" to say that. When suggestions are made about what might be done then there are claims of "if you do that then there will be another "stolen generation" so we have to leave them where they are". 

Perhaps it is time for more people to read the report into the "stolen generation" and look at the number of successful claims. There has been just one successful claim in this state - but we are still told there were "many" children just taken from their families. 

I would not agree with a policy that in any way forcibly removed children from their families if they were being even just adequately cared for at home. That said I wonder whether we do not need to intervene much more strongly when children are not being properly cared for. Is it perhaps time to stop the nonsense of "the right to self-determination" when such large sums of money are being spent for no visible benefit?  

 

There is currently a joke

going around that goes something like this. 

A man goes to heaven. He is waiting for St Peter to fill out the paper work at his desk. He looks around the office and sees all the clocks on the wall.

"What are all the clocks for?"

"Oh, they are the lie clocks," St Peter tells him.

"The lie clocks?"

"Yes, if they move then we know people have told a lie."

"Oh. Whose is that one there?"

"That's Mother Teresa's. It has never moved. She never told a lie."

"And that one?"

"That's Abraham Lincoln's. He only ever told two lies."

"Can you tell me where the one belonging to Donald Trump is?"

"Oh Jesus has that one in his office. He uses it as an air conditioner."

Yes, funny but it could also be applied here to our Prime Minister and his Cabinet, particularly his Treasurer. We have, believe it or not, just been told that "Lying is how you build trust." 

Apparently you lie to the public and then, gradually over months and years, you lie to them even more so that they come to believe that their policies are necessary and the changes are necessary. They tell you "the situation has changed", that an external event or some natural disaster has made the change in policy necessary. It is not true of course but this is how they handle policy changes.

There are some changes coming up in the Budget that will do a great deal of economic harm. They are being made with an eye to a third term in government. They will appear to be giving to "struggling" families who are finding it hard to make ends meet. 

A retired bank economist tried to explain to me yesterday that the proposals being discussed in the press will raise rents by around twenty percent. They will not add to housing stock and may make it more expensive to actually build houses. We already have a housing shortage. This will add to the problems. But.... it sounds good. 

By the time the next election comes around this will almost certainly be blamed on the war in the Middle East and the fuel shortages. Will the government be held to account? It is unlikely. We will just see more solar panels and wind turbines on agricultural land and be told that this is how we reach the magical "net zero".  

There is a need to be quiet

if you live in close proximity to other people. At least, I thought there was.

I live in a group of twelve units. They are not flats where people live on top of one another but self contained ground floor dwellings. They are what Americans might call condominiums. 

When I moved here I expected there would be a need to be aware of those around me. I was prepared for a need to be quiet. I hope I have been.

The same is not true of everyone. There is an alcoholic who lives in another unit whose voice I often hear. There is someone who lives two doors from her. I often hear her talking to the alcoholic and going in and out of her unit. These are background sort of noises. I can cope with those. They occur during daylight hours.

No, it is my next door neighbour. My neighbours seems to keep very odd hours. It is not unusual for me to hear what sounds like the dishes being done at eleven in the evening. This is not quiet. It is clattering and banging. The footsteps backwards and forwards are rapid and heavy. 

There is a machine of some sort being used at times. It sounds like one of those heavier floor polishers used by commercial cleaners. The other morning it was used just after 3am.  Yes, of course it woke me. The wall between is not that thick.

This person goes in and out the back screen door. It is left to bang shut. The other door is shut with a bang. There are more heavy footsteps. 

Oddly I never hear a television set or radio.

I have no idea what this person does for a living. Is it shift work? I would not have thought so. I am not sure this person even does go to work. We have spoken - but only briefly.

Is it unreasonable to ask for quiet between ten at night and six in the morning? Is it unreasonable for people to be aware? 

It worries me. Am I making any noise which disturbs people? Nobody has said anything but I still wonder.

I suppose it is better than being able to hear the two young ones on the other side when they are in bed.   

We are over taxed

in this country. We pay some of the highest, if not the highest, rates of taxation in the world. (Yes, some of those Scandinavian countries are high - but they get more for their Euros.) 

We are also over-governed.            

We pay tax on almost everything we buy through the "GST" - the "goods and services tax". We pay tax to our local council, shire, borough or whatever it is called. That is supposed to pay for things like local roads and rubbish collection. We pay taxes to our state government. We pay taxes to our federal government. We also pay for other government run "services". Our national health service is not "free" - although the Prime Minister keeps telling us it is. 

A great deal of our taxes go on duplicating services in varying amounts at different levels. They go on sorting out the different laws and regulations in each state. They go on employing the vast legal network needed to oversee all this. Yes, plenty of people have cause to want things to go on this way. Their livelihoods depend on it.

It needs to change. It won't change.

But it is also this sort of thing that allows petty little dictators who are also excellent con artists into making people believe that millions upon millions of dollars spent rooting up trees in parkland is a good idea. The Premier of this state is one of those dictators. He is still trying to go ahead with the "LIV" golf course to the north of the CBD. There is already a golf course there. It is a public course used by many. It is apparently more than fit for purpose. There are hundreds of trees there. The LIV course is redesigned. It requires hundreds of trees to come out. Not as many people will be able to use it. The land has been taken without compensation from people who have cared for it, from ratepayers who have paid their taxes into it.

I could not care less about golf. I am Mark Twain's view that it is "a good walk spoilt" but I do care about the trees and the wildlife which rely on the trees and the removal of our green canopy. I also care about fairly compensating people for loss. This has not been done here.

This is what happens when a government is handed too much power. All I can do is hope there is a backlash at the next election - but it will be too late to save what needs to be saved.   

We are segregating, not integrating people

when we insist they must "retain their language and culture".

I was accused of being "racist" yesterday. This was after someone had read my blog post. They did not like it.  Didn't I know how important it was for indigenous people to retain their language and culture? We have no right to take that away from them I was told.

I was no suggesting that it be taken away from them but this is apparently how my words came across. I have not, as demanded, taken the post down. There is no need for that. I may be wrong in what I said there but I do not believe I am.

I will put it to you again. I will put it to you simply. If you cannot speak the "official" language of your country then you cannot fully participate in the conversations and you will be dependent on others. If you cannot read and write that language then you will be dependent on others. 

I remember a speech pathologist of my acquaintance remarking to me how hard people with cerebral palsy who have speech defects will try to communicate using speech. Of course they will. If they can speak they will try however hard it is. All the communication devices in the world do not make up for speech. Speech makes it possible to be part of the conversation without anything in between.

With respect to indigenous people however this has nothing to do with not being able to speak but being able to speak a language which is widely understood. It is about not being able to read and write that language. 

The indigenous teen I know who has come down from a remote community to finish school this year struggles at times. He is an intelligent boy. He knew it would be difficult. His guardian here is giving him extra help and they both know he needs it. He also knows that using good English and having good results will get him into the course he wants to do. He is one of the most motivated students I have come across. He knows, and his parents know, that success will only come if he works for it. 

He can speak his local indigenous language "but it can't say what English says" and his culture is still important to him "but there is lots of other good stuff which is just as important". Yes, he likes some aspects of "pop" culture just as much as any other teen. I hope he makes a go of it but he has huge hurdles to overcome when so much is invested by others in him "retaining" his language and culture. 

You do not need to lose your language or your culture entirely.You need to recognise they will change over time and the balance of their importance may change. What we cannot do is demand that it be retained so that the disadvantage is retained with it.   

  

A five year old has died

in the most horrific circumstances but I am almost certain her death will not bring about the changes which are needed. 

I am writing of course about the death of the very attractive little aboriginal girl who lived in one of the "camps" outside Alice Springs. It is not the sort of place where anyone should be living in this country, let alone a child. She did not have a bedroom, or even a bed. She slept on a mattress on a floor in a room where whisky bottles were lined up along the windowsill. The house is apparently strewn with rubbish. 

To me it all sounds all too common in that part of the world. I have talked with aboriginal women who are even more worried than I am. They are among the seeming few who really do want the best for their children, who insist on them going to school. They make sure their children are fed and clothed to the best of their ability. They try to keep their boys from running in the streets at night. So far those I know are winning the battle - but at a huge cost.

The way we handle "indigenous" affairs in this country has to change. It is not working. It will never work. 

Over and over again there have been "councils" and "organisations" and "groups" and this or that body which have failed. They have all failed because they have the same philosophy. They say "indigenous people have the right to self-determination". They say they have "the right to retain their language and culture". 

Consider this though and see if it works. You speak a language which has a relationship with another language spoken before white settlement. Yes, it has changed and evolved over the years. It is incomprehensible to all but, at most, a few thousand people.  You send your children off to the school where they are taught in that language. You know your children are supposed to go to school but you are not really interested because you may not be able to read and write at all. If you can it is probably only in a very limited way. There are no books in your house. Nobody reads bedtime stories.

The school does not have the resources other schools have because the wide ranging resources available in English are not available in your language. Still the cost of running your school is still higher. Absenteeism is high. The students are restless. They have not had enough to eat and there was some serious fighting in the camp last night. The fighting was almost certainly alcohol induced.  

I could go on but it does not take imagination to realise that this does not work. Children need to be educated in English if they are ever to have any chance of breaking free of a cycle of dependence. They need to be in a situation where their parents or guardians can only spend their government handout on specific items. Their parents and guardians, particularly their male parents and guardians, need to be gainfully occupied. They may not be "employable" as such but they need to be required to "work" in some manner or other.  

Yes, I know that idea goes against everything we have been told we "know" and "believe" about the importance of retaining language and culture. The reality however is that language and culture are not being retained. They have never been retained. The claim we are doing that is false. It has always been false. Chaining people to some sort of mythical past culture does not work. Real aboriginal culture was brutal and violent. It left any of the weak behind. This is rarely acknowledged. To actually say this is to leave one open to claims of "racist". We seem to believe it is better to rely on "traditional" ideas like "welcome to country" and "dot art" even when the first idea had an entirely different purpose in the past and the second idea is a mid-twentieth century one introduced by a white man. 

Is it really racist to require people to contribute something to society if they possibly can? I have never had any problem with "work for the dole" schemes that give people some sort of employment. I have friends with disabilities who receive disability support pensions but still contribute through working in sheltered employment or by volunteering in other places. It gives their lives a purpose. This is what many of those in the "camps" and communities need.  

There is an "indigenous industry" out there with people who are making money through the philosophy of "retention". Until that stops then there will be more deaths, deaths of innocent and very attractive children. Is that what we want? It seems it is what some people do want.  

Academic freedom of speech

 I have the dubious pleasure of going to the dentist today and I will not have time to write my usual rubbish. Instead I am taking the opportunity to pass this on from the BBC website. The author is Branwen Jeffreys the Education Editor. BBC: https://bbc.com/news/articles/cp8pnwyy0zjo This is merely for information. I am not "commenting" apart to say that, in light of similar issues in Downunder, it is interesting.

The University of Sussex has won an appeal against a record £585,000 fine and ruling it had infringed on lawful freedom of speech.

Last year the Office for Students (OfS), the regulator of England's universities, handed down the fine and claimed the university had breached its trans and non-binary inclusion policy.

The OfS investigation came after Kathleen Stock left her job as professor of philosophy at Sussex, following protests from students over her view that gender was not more important than biological sex.

The vice-chancellor of Sussex said the new High Court ruling raised serious questions about the regulator, while the OfS described the outcome as "disappointing".

The High Court case did not consider what happened to Stock, but rather how the OfS reached its decision over the fine.

High Court judge Mrs Justice Lieven ruled on Wednesday on whether a proper process was followed in issuing the fine.

It was handed down to the university in March 2025 on the basis of Sussex's trans and non-binary policy, which included a requirement to "positively represent trans people" and warned against "transphobic propaganda".

In court, the University of Sussex had argued the trans and non-binary policy was not what is called a "governing document" and did not have the importance attached to it by regulator the OfS.

This concern was upheld by Wednesday's judgment, along with several other aspects of the process.

Perhaps most damaging for the regulator - meant to oversee freedom of speech - was that the accusation of bias in the process was also upheld.

Mrs Justice Lieven said the OfS had "closed its mind" to anything other than a finding that the university had failed to uphold freedom of speech.

The regulator was also found to have taken a flawed approach to deciding what was academic freedom.

The OfS told the BBC that it did not accept this and instead said it needed to improve how it recorded its decisions.

The regulator's chairman said he would consider over several weeks whether to appeal against the High Court ruling.

As part of the investigation that led to the fine, the OfS interviewed Stock, but the court had heard it did not meet anyone from the university in person despite requests from the institution to discuss concerns.

Last August, a new freedom of speech law covering England's universities came into force giving the regulator even stronger powers.

A complaints system will allow academics and visiting speakers to directly raise concerns with the OfS from this autumn.

From April 2027, universities could face fines of £500,000 or 2% of their income if they are found to have failed to protect free speech.

The vice-chancellor and president of the University of Sussex, Prof Sasha Roseneil, said: "I am delighted that Sussex's foundational commitments to academic freedom and freedom of speech have been recognised by the High Court."

She added: "It is a devastating indictment of the impartiality and competence of the OfS, implicating its operations, leadership, governance, and strategy. It raises important and urgent questions for the government as it plans to grant ever more powers to the regulator."

Josh Fleming, interim chief executive of the OfS, said it would "carefully consider the consequences of the judgment before deciding on next steps".

He said: "Our focus remains on students and the sector, and we are pleased that following our investigation a dozen institutions, including the University of Sussex, have amended policies which restricted freedom of speech.

"As a result, students and academics should feel greater confidence in their ability to engage in the free and frank exploration of thought that characterises English higher education."

Vivienne Stern, the chief executive of Universities UK, which represents over a hundred institutions, said universities wanted to "work closely with the Office for Students to reset relationships and rebuild trust".

A statement continued: "Effective regulation depends not just on enforcement, but on trust, clarity, and a shared understanding of respective roles."

Paying for the news?

Our Prime Minister has apparently just said that investment in journalism "is critical to healthy democracy".

Oh yes, it is a lovely thing to say if you can see money in it. Do not be fooled. The plan to try and make the tech giants pay for the news they "use" has nothing to do with a healthy democracy. This is about control. This is about money.

A 2.25% tax may not sound like much but the Prime Minister is saying the tech giants will have to pay the tax even if they pull the news from the likes of Google, TikTok and FB. He is very generously saying he will reduce it to 1.5% if the tech giants do deals directly with the bigger outlets and works with government on the smaller outlets. 

He is also saying "we believe it is only fair that these platforms contribute to the hard work of journalism that enriches their feeds and that drives their revenue".  According to the Prime Minister it is "not a tax". 

Of course this move has the support of the media giants like NewsCorp. 

Yes, I agree you should pay for something if you are using it but the reality here is that the tech giants have generally got agreements with groups like NewsCorp. There are mutual benefits here. If you doubt me then how often have you seen something you would like to know more about only to find it was behind a paywall? This is advertising. Want to know more? Then pay to read it.

What is really the giveaway here is that the proposed legislation includes our ABC, our national broadcaster which is paid for through our taxes. It includes the SBS, also taxpayer funded. The Guardian is there along with the usual commercial suspects but the inclusion of the ABC and SBS makes it clear that this is a tax. It is a money raising exercise.

I get my news from a wide variety of sources. I read more than one newspaper. I pay for some, have some paid for me and there are some I pay for indirectly. It's a fair mix.

Bring the tax in and the US government is threatening to raise tariffs. If that happens then this will spiral. We will lose news content. Some of it may not matter much. If it leads to less sport then I am not too concerned. If it wipes the likes or Orla Guerin and her colleagues from our screens and pages then I will be a great deal more concerned. 

It is not a simple "user pays" situation. "Who" pays, "how" and "why" matters when it comes to sources of information.     

Never caught a bus alone?

I had to help a sixteen year old catch a bus yesterday. She had never done it before. She had never been on a bus apart from a school excursion bus.

A school excursion bus is a completely different sort of experience of course. Someone at the school orders the bus.Your parents pay the excursion money. The teachers tell the driver where you are going and see to it that you all get off at the right place. You go back to school on the bus.

This girl had never been anywhere else without a parent or other adult. She had no idea how to catch a bus. That she felt embarrassed would be an understatement. 

Had she been on a train alone? No. On just one occasion she had been in a taxi on her own. Her mother takes her to school. Her grandfather picks her up from school. The problem? Her grandfather was not available. It is the only time in all these years he has not been available. 

Her mother had rung me in exasperation, "She's useless. Will you go down and tell her what to do. See she gets on the right bus. Tell the driver she gets off at the stop before the terminus. I hope to hell she can find her way from there."

I went. I went because I was furious with her mother. Yes, a sixteen year old should be able to catch a bus alone. There are sixteen year old girls who have sailed around the world alone. This sixteen year old has not, until now, ever been given the opportunity to do anything like that.

At the bus stop I discovered that she had not got on the bus she should have caught because "I didn't think it was the right one." It was the right one but I admit there is a rule about picking up and setting down which is confusing. That particular stop is a layover though and it does not apply. I explained. We waited for the next bus and I gave her some tips for her English assignment. The bus came in and I watched her get on, use her card to pay the fare. I interfered enough to say to the driver, "She isn't sure about this route but she needs to get off at the stop before the terminus."

"Not a problem," I was told. 

But it is a problem. A sixteen year old can get a licence to learn to learn to drive and this sixteen year old cannot catch a bus.   

What do we want children to read?

 This was Susie O'Brien in the state newspaper this morning. I am, with permission, repeating it in full here. This is what we are up against. 

Roald Dahl’s iconic book The Twits has been described as outdated,

abusive, violent, cruel and discriminatory towards men with facial hair.

The 1981 global favourite is on the primary school curriculum for English

classes in this state and is widely used as a classroom text in several

other states.

But a new analysis by Dr Mellie Green from the Faculty of Education at

Southern Cross University has found the book’s continued use in schools

“raises a professional dilemma for contemporary teachers and teacher

educators”.

Much-loved humorous moments such as of the “hairy-faced men” who

don’t wash their faces, the “boy pie”, “ugly” Mrs Twit and upside-down

monkeys are singled out as “problematic” and “outdated”.

Dr Green argued the book, which has sold over 16 million copies and been

translated into 41 languages, showed a “lack of inclusion, reliance on

ridicule, stereotyping, and the “normalisation of cruelty as humour”.

In particular, she said the book contains “derogatory stereotyping” of men

with beards.

“While framed as humour, (it) constructs facial hair as suspicious,

unhygienic, and morally suspect, inviting readers to participate in the

ridicule of an entire group,” Dr Green said in an article in The Australian

Journal of Language and Literacy.

Mr Twit’s beer drinking is also highlighted as problematic; Dr Green noted

alcohol was “an established risk factor for domestic and family violence”.

Dr Green also described the book as being “about abuse, coercive power,

and fear framed as humour” as well as domestic violence.

“In The Twits, Mrs Twit’s appearance is repeatedly and viciously attacked

by her husband; ‘Have you ever seen a woman with an uglier face than

that? I doubt it’.”

Dr Green also said “threats of violence towards children are also

repeatedly framed as comic moments” such as when boys are glued to a

tree and when Mr Twit threatens to cook them into a “boy pie”.

The Advertiser https://todayspaper.adelaidenow.com.au/html5/reader/production/defau...

1 of 2 4/27/2026, 7:50 AM

“The Twits fails to offer the kind of literary richness that allows for

discussion of complex characters, multiple interpretations, or nuanced

social themes,” she said.

Dr Green did not say the book should be removed from school reading lists

but argued it should be more critically assessed.

She accused it of “normalising offensive portrayals” and said there was a

need for “greater professional discernment in text selection”.

Colleen Harkin, director of education programs and research fellow at the

Institute of Public Affairs, said critics of The Twits such as Dr Green

“misunderstand both Dahl’s work and young readers themselves”.

“Young recognise the absurdity, exaggeration, matter-of-fact egregious

and gleeful nonsense in Dahl’s work,” she told The Advertiser.

“It’s what makes many young readers roll on the floor in hysterics …

critics underestimate children’s intelligence,” she added. 

My niece and nephews adored Dahl. Their children still do. All of them have watched Charlie and the Chocolate Factory multiple times. Every other child I have ever known who has had contact with Dahl's books for children have also enjoyed them. They have laughed and laughed. They have repeated things from them, told me enthusiastically about them. Their parents have groaned and protested at being pestered to read the books "again".

Dahl's books are not great literature but they are still great books. They are ridiculous. They are permission to make fun of things we are not normally permitted to deal with in that way. They are funny.

Apparently this is not acceptable to people like Dr Green. I was reminded of something in a book published in the mid-sixties. In "Pauline" by Margaret Storey there is a point where orphaned Pauline hears her seven year old cousin singing in the bath. Betty is singing about "fifteen men on a dead man's chest" but Betty stops singing when her father explains what it means. All the magic of the moment has gone. Dr Green and others apparently do not see this as important. It is more important for the child to be educated into the correct way thinking. 

It is like that moment in the library when the young girl looked up at me and said, "I'm sick of AIDS and death and divorce. I just want a good adventure story." That was so many years ago now but the situation has, if anything, become worse. Oh we have reprints of Enid Blyton and all the "Tree house" type books but somewhere along the way we have lost other books, those "good adventure stories" which are rooted in the world and not in fantasy.  We have lost the sort of books where a child can believe "this is real. It could have happened to me."  

If you doubt me then what about the child who told me, "There are no real adventure stories any more, not the sort that might happen to me. It's all dragons and magic and stuff and I like it but all the stories about kids who are supposed to be like me are about the sort of thing we get told we have to believe." 

The "have to believe" was apparently issues about gender, race and other social issues. If anyone doubts me I glanced at a book while waiting by the table of remainders the newsagent has outside. It was intended for young teens and it is the story of a boy whose mother takes on a surrogacy for a male couple.  Perhaps I should have bought it and read it and educated myself but I actually found myself thinking, "Is this really want teens want to read or is it what adults think they should be reading?" 

I had to give away a very large collection of children's literature when I moved. It has bothered me ever since. I am beginning to realise why the children around me saw me as a lending library. I had found and collected what they wanted to read.  

The "Welcome to Country" protests

have to stop.

I know, I have written about this elsewhere and others will write about it today. They will say it is "disrespectful" and more.

Yes, it is "disrespectful" but it is disrespectful on more than one level. It is disrespectful of the person delivering the address. They have been asked to do something. I may not agree with what they are doing but they have been asked to do it. In the highly unlikely event I was the one delivering the address I would expect people to at least be quiet. No, you don't have to pay attention. You can think about anything else but be polite. Do not interrupt. 

It is disrespectful to people whose ancestors lived here before white settlement. Does that matter? Yes, it does. My ancestors came from Scotland. If someone without Scots ancestry turned up at the Caledonian Society and booed a traditional welcome there I would feel, at very least, uncomfortable especially if it was done on Burns Night or St Andrew's Day or Hogmanay. No, they are not "sacred" but they often mean something special to Scots.

The booing at yesterday's ANZAC ceremonies goes further than that. It was disrespectful to all service personnel everywhere. That is unacceptable. It is the sort of behaviour that would come from the louts who might have done much more serious harm to the little war memorial had my friend's husband not gone and stood quietly there two days ago. 

But I also believe any "welcome" or "acknowledgment" is inappropriate at any time. It is especially inappropriate on this occasion.  It is a political act where no political act should be present. The "welcome" and the "acknowledgment" ceremonies are political acts. They are not welcoming. They are designed to divide us, to remind us of claims about "theft", thefts in which none of us had any part but for which we are told we must be held accountable. All too often they are delivered by people whose own ancestors are among those being welcomed. How do you reconcile that? 

For service personnel this must be particularly difficult. Those few left who served in WWII must find it even more difficult. ANZAC Day should be about the men and women who served this country, nothing more and nothing less. 

Vandalising war memorials

needs to be dealt with in the harshest possible terms. Kicking them is not on either. It will lead to vandalising them later if left unchecked.

There were more than a couple of teenage louts who thought this would be "fun" yesterday. They were in a local "green space". It isn't really a park as such, just an area of grass with a small memorial.  It's usually a quiet space, one where people can sit on the only seat and just take a break or rest on their walk home. I don't often go that way.

I was dropping off some books to a person who lives in a house that looks out on the space. She had come out to greet me and it was then we saw the boys. They must have known the memorial was there because they immediately began kicking it.

The woman I was visiting went to her door and said something to her husband. He came out and, without hesitation, advanced on the boys. They jeered at him and us. They did not scatter as I thought they might. They defied him, telling him "There's nothing you can do Grandpa".

I was seriously worried by then. 

I need not have been. Someone in the next house had heard the shouting and come out. He was filming the entire thing on his phone although the boys were not aware of it. "Grandpa" did nothing. He just stood there. He stared at them. He went on staring at them.  It obviously bothered them. They left.

When they had gone he walked over to the memorial and carefully dusted some grass off. He picked up a can of spray paint by the very edges. His neighbour came over and filmed the rest. I left.

My friend phoned me last night "just to reassure". Yes, the police had been. Photographs had been taken. "They decided they did not need to interview you," she told me, "It's all there on film. L...and M... spent the rest of the morning clearing the mess up. When the men arrived this afternoon it was all cleared away."

There was a small Dawn Service there this morning. My friend's husband kept watch all night. The paint had not been used.

I wonder what the police will do, if they do anything at all. The evidence is there on film but will they find the boys? 

I  hope they do. I hope they do more than simply warn them but I know it is unlikely. It is the sort of thing the boys will probably boast about. I would like to sit them down, one at a time, and have them listen to the men I have known over my lifetime - the men who made it possible for those louts to be there yesterday.    

Living in a "hall of residence"

at a university is not for the faint hearted now. There was a dance at one recently. It began at eight in the evening and officially ended at midnight. Yes, shock! Horror! 

Apparently twenty-seven residents who live across the street from the venue complained about the noise. Really?

When I was at teacher training college there was no residence for the students. You lived at home, with relatives, in rental accommodation or - in my case - you lived in a boarding school. (I was "earning" my board and lodging as a very junior housemistress.) I therefore did not see a "hall of residence" until I went to university on the other side of the world. 

It was not your typical student hall of residence. It was a "post-graduate" residence. I was one of the youngest, if not the youngest, student there. There were "students" in their forties and fifties. There was someone writing a book about aged care who was close to retirement, another doing some research who was about the same age. Most of the residents came from other parts of the world. The place was, as such places go, very quiet. In the evenings we retired to our rooms and worked. It is what we were there for. 

I eventually moved from there to a similar establishment that was self-catering. I occasionally saw other students in the communal kitchen. Once in a while someone would suggest a visit to whatever free entertainment was available. None of us had any money for frivolities. Very occasionally we would spend 65p on a ticket to a concert or the theatre.

Back in Downunder I had no intention of returning to university but it became increasingly obvious I needed to know much more about the law, international law, tort law, law and medicine, law and the social sciences. I sighed. I put in an application. I applied to a hall of residence too. Accepted into these places I found myself a little older, but not that much older, and a little less happy with the noise. I solved the problem by spending long hours in the Law library. Right around me the youngest students, mostly straight out of school, were enjoying life. 

At least it seemed that way. It did not take long to discover all the problems they were facing. There were students who were happy and working hard. There were students who were not happy and still working hard. There were students who discovered the courses they had chosen were not right for them, who discovered alcohol and drugs. I was not really surprised by any of this. There was enough in the media to tell me it would be going on.  I expected social activities. The law had changed and there was now a student "bar" on the premises and in the university grounds. I never visited the former and I still do not know where the latter is! I wasn't being a prude. I don't drink alcohol and even someone just a few years older would not have been welcome in the residence bar. I suspect it was also where the cannabis was exchanged. Hard drugs were not in evidence but cannabis was rife. I would come back from a Saturday in the library and find someone had opened my bedroom window from the outside so I would not have a foul smelling room. They were pretty good about that. I knew to keep my mouth shut - and to listen when someone banged on the door looking for help.

I did some more post-grad work at another university and was asked to live in a small self-catering unit of fourteen students. It was quieter but there were still issues. The Asian girls tended to be very quiet and tidy. The boys were less so but still quieter and tidier than the more local students. Those students would leave a mess in the kitchen and the "music" would be full blast occasionally. I did not like it because I am a "quiet" person but I recognised it was part of life in residence. The only thing complaining would have done was isolate me. 

I am not sure I could do it now. I think I am too old for noisy, communal living. I dread the thought of being bundled into a nursing home and living communally again. I like my own space, my own quiet. 

If the student who lives next door to me now wants a party though what would I do? 

I would not complain about a one off on a Saturday night the way those other residents in the area did. I would try to remember what it was like being away from parental supervision and control and how we damn well needed to do it. It was part of growing up. It is only when you go on doing it to excess it becomes a real problem.   

That NDIS announcement

has been made. 

As I expected the first thing which happened was an alarmed call to me. "What's this going to mean for K...'s package?"

My answer to that was, "Nobody is going to take K...'s package away. It might be reviewed at some point but even without the NDIS you would have been getting extra help."

The NDIS was designed to provide help for people like K...  She is so severely physically disabled she cannot do anything for herself. She cannot speak. She is fed through a tube because she cannot swallow. She has the intellectual understanding of, at most, a two year old child.  Her parents did an amazing job of caring for her. Her father is no longer alive but her mother, now in her eighties, goes to see her daughter in the "group house" every day. She worries about what will happen to K... when she is no longer there to help.

"I would miss her dreadfully but I wish she would go before me so I would know she was safe," her mother tells me. What a think to have to wish!

The NDIS was supposed to be for people like K. It was not intended to provide football boots and a carer to take a boy with behavioural issues to after school sport. Yes, they are behavioural issues. He is not "autistic". He has some learning issues but they are not severe. He has extra tutorial sessions. They require extra effort on his part, an effort he is not making. He is the only child and life revolves around what he demands. He is a bully at school and has been suspended for his behaviour more than once. He has been "assessed" more than once and each time his "package" has been increased. His mother told me, quite proudly, that he is now getting more than $30,000 a year in funding. He loves the extra attention but is it doing any good? That is highly debatable. It is not what the NDIS was intended to cover. 

The NDIS is doing the job it was intended to do for another child I know. She is now five and this year is being "home-schooled". It is not by choice but because she is physically too frail to go to school. She is a very intelligent child who wants to go to school. Her package includes funding for attending a "gym class" - actually a highly specialised exercise session. The sessions are designed to try and build up enough strength to handle at least a half day at school next year. If she can handle that then she will attend school full time the following year but there will still need to be someone available to give her some help to handle her medical needs.  Her father told me, "We are hoping we can cut back on the funding as she learns to handle more herself. " 

I had her here for a couple of ours recently when her grandmother could not help as she usually does. We did some craft together and at one point I asked, "Do you want me to do it or would you like to try doing it yourself?" Her immediate response was, "I want to do it."  It has taken time and training and an expectation that she will try to do what she can to get to that response. It made me think that the NDIS needs to be about more than funding. It needs to be about an expectation of effort as well. Yes, it is "not fair" this child will have a life long physical issue but her parents are teaching her that this means she will always have to make the effort to cope.

Perhaps this is where we have gone wrong with the NDIS. It should not be about "services" or "money" but about assistance only where assistance is really needed.  For the K..s of this world it should be about dignity and the occasional treat because she can do nothing for herself. For the other two it should be about making them as independent as possible but making sure they are putting the effort in so funding is doing the job it was intended to do.