The long awaited Houston report

into the mess that is Australia's asylum seeker debate has just officially come out. As expected it demands compromises from all sides - something it may or may not get.
The twenty two recommendations are laid out in the Australian this morning. Along with those are an indication of where the Government, the Opposition and the Greens stand or lie on the recommendations.
I wondered just how far Houston, once our Defence Force Chief, would be prepared to oppose the government which appointed him and two colleagues to do the review. One of his colleagues claim there was political consultation and also community consultation. I doubt the consultation went far enough.
It has been done in haste and I can see some things have been left out. Perhaps they were outside the terms of reference provided. It is likely. The government would not want to climb down on some issues.
As it is the report does go against government policy. The recommendations provide for a "no advantage" scenario for people who attempt to come by boat. If the necessary legislation passes they will no longer be able to do what is viewed as "queue jumping". It will take away some, but by no means all, of the incentive to pay a people smuggler a large sum of money in the hope of resettling in Australia - and then risking your life in the hope that the navy vessel will pick you up when the bung is removed as the ship appears.
Many of the recommendations in the report closely align with the policy of the Opposition. That is hardly surprising. It was plain that they were working before they were dismantled. It is going to be much, much more difficult to get them to work again. People smugglers, indeed Asia as a whole, see the present government as "soft" and that perception is not likely to change quickly. Indonesia has no real interest in solving the problem. The current situation means that some of those in high places are making a lot of money from the misery of those endeavouring to come to Australia via Indonesian soil. They may make noises to the contrary but they will do very little.
The proposed "Malaysia solution" is still there too - and I think many people will be unhappy about that. Admittedly the report recommends it not be put in place unless there is further discussions and safeguards are put in place. The problem is that it is still a "people swap" deal and we should not be trading in human beings, especially with a country that has a very dubious human rights record and has not signed up to the Human Rights Convention.
There is something else we need to do however and that is demand much more of those who are now in detention. You want to come to Australia? Then you will attend English classes while in detention. You will learn English and show us that you have some basic communication skills. You cannot read and write in your own language? Then you will attend classes and become literate in that language too. You have no work skills? Then you will attend still other classes that will give you work skills we need - and you will go where you are sent to work.
There will be people who say "but refugees are too traumatised to cope with this sort of thing". I disagree. Most refugees are desperate to learn these skills if they do not already have them. There will be some who cannot cope but most will be able to cope. They will want to learn. My guess however is that many of those who arrived, and will arrive, by boat will suddenly "acquire" literacy and work skills.
The problems are a long way from solved but, if you want to come here, then there are things you must make an effort to learn - just as I would expect to have to learn your language and abide by your way of life if I went to the country you came from.
That is still a major failing of our asylum seeker policy.

Today is apparently "World Lefthanders' Day"

- or so a friend informs me. He left a brief e-mail to remind me that "today is our day". He is, of course, left handed. He is very left handed indeed. Life has been a constant challenge for him - or so he claims.  Well yes, he welcomed ring pull cans because he no longer had to try and "use a can opener backwards". (Is that even possible?)
I am also left handed - after a fashion. 
I can do some things (equally badly) with either hand. I blame my mother for this. She thought I should be right handed. Whenever I tried to use my left hand I would get smacked. I was not supposed to be left handed. Everyone else in the family was right handed.
When I headed off to school my mother told them I was right handed and that I was to be right handed. I am old enough that this sort of statement was allowed and even encouraged. I can remember other left handed children. Every effort was made to make us right handed.
I can also remember the dreaded words, "Hold out your hand."  The teacher would mean my left hand. I would hold it out and the ruler would come down hard on my hand. 
One teacher refused to allow me to do any art and craft at all. She set me "extra writing". I made pot hooks while the other members of the class drew, coloured in, cut out, pasted, threaded and otherwise constructed bright colourful things. I hated her with a passion. I hated school. I think I hated the world that year. It made no difference. It is surprising that I still did well in every other subject. I came third in class that year. If I had been given any marks at all for writing I might have done rather better.
I wonder now just how much damage the attitude towards left handers did - and perhaps still does. Some of the most creative and able people in history have been left handed - just look at Leonardo da Vinci. There have been some idiots who were left handed too of course - but now I like to think I am not one of them.

How many of your favourite books

as a child had adults in them? They might have put in an appearance but how many of them had adults in major roles?
          "You can't leave a kid on their own!" someone told me when I explained the plot of something I have written, "It's irresponsible. You can't write that sort of thing now. Nobody will publish it."
Perhaps it won't get published but, unless the kid is on his own, there is no plot. I don't see it as "irresponsible". It's about a resourceful, intelligent kid dealing with a bad situation. He makes mistakes because he's a kid. Is there something bad about that?
One of the rules of writing for children is that, in many situations, you need to get rid of the parents. It is getting harder to do that - and doing it believably is even harder.  Once it was acceptable to have latch-key kids who took themselves to and from school, who roamed the streets barely supervised or even not supervised at all. You could send kids on a train journey alone for a holiday in the country - preferably to an ancient aunt or uncle who leave them to their own devices.  It all opened up enormous plot possibilities.
Now children get taken to and from school. There is after-school care. There are other after-school activities. Weekends are taken up with more supervised activities. Some children are not even allowed to have unsupervised play in their own backyards. They are never more than a few metres from adult scrutiny. They have no chance to climb a tree or ride around the block. I know children who are not allowed to ride their bikes up and down their driveway unless one of their parents is there to supervise.  I know others who have not been allowed to have a skateboard, scooter or soccer ball for fear of injury. Many more are not allowed to join Scouts, Guides, church youth groups and other like activities for fear of paedophiles - and yes, it is a very serious issue. The same children will attend sport - but generally with a parent in full-time attendance. They will go to ballet, music or drama class. Those things are somehow seen as different - whether they are really "safer" is dubious but they are seen as more disciplined and "worthwhile". It is hardly the sort of thing many children want to read about.
How do you write a book about children and for children when they are under that level of adult supervision? The answer is - I don't think I can. I am sure there are people who believe they can but I doubt I can.
I have chosen to set my writing back in the middle of last century, at the time when I was growing up. There are no computers. There are no mobile phones. There are adults - and I hope they are believable - but they are not always there.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it is possible to write books where there is a high level of adult supervision of older children. Perhaps it is irresponsible to do away with the adults - but it is fun.

There was a "bang!"

and it was rather loud bang...and my computer went dead. The power supply had gone completely. At 5:30am, and when I am expecting to have a conversation with someone elsewhere in the world, this was somewhat disconcerting. (Yes, a slight understatement there.)
At 9:30am I was still not on line. My sister's house was still asleep. The library was not open. I 'phoned a colleague interstate and asked them to send an urgent e-mail to the person who had been expecting to hear from me - at least they had the correct e-mail address.
At 10:30am my brother-in-law who "knows about computers" was up. "It's the power supply I would think."  He came over, pulled the cover off the tower, sniffed (as I had) and said, "Has to be that." He took the tower off with him and has now returned it. I am back on line. I have done some urgent work for someone and sent it off.
You will get today's blog post tomorrow - when I write it.
And you might like to silently thank all such brothers-in-law who drop everything so that people like me can get things done.

I filled out a form

yesterday. I just love filling out forms - perhaps.
Name? Oh, I suppose you need that if you want to get back to me...but you probably won't get it right when you do respond.
Sex? A friend of mine is inclined to write "yes please" but I won't do that. I find that response as objectionable as the question. I will ignore that question. It is irrelevant to the rest of the information on the form.
Date of birth? Also irrelevant. Ignore. Age? You just asked.
Address? You won't take a box number? Why not?
E-mail address? Will you spam me? Which one of my e-mail addresses has the best filter for that sort of thing?
Phone number? Well yes, on this occasion you need it I suppose.
Mobile number? I don't know what it is. I never phone myself and the mobile (which I have ungraciously accepted is needed for the safety of the Sr Cat rather than myself) is for emergencies only.
Have I contacted you before? No. (If I had why would you need all this information again?)
The account number? If I had one and you asked for that in the first place you would have all the above information in your system would you not?
There were other things as well. Then I filled out the little box stating my business and pressed "next". Nothing happened.
After a moment I was returned to the beginning with a bright red demand that all blanks must be filled in.
I filled in the blanks with nonsense and pressed "next" again. I continued on. Let them believe they are dealing with an MF who is 99.
I just wanted to tell the relevant authority that a very large piece of street tree trunk was blocking access to the home of an elderly man around the corner. He had not been able to get through to them on the 'phone and neither could I.
A couple of hours later there is a phone call. I repeat the information in the little box. The voice at the other end says,
          "Next time phone us. That way we know it is a genuine problem."
          "Next time," I say, "Will someone in your office please answer the phone?"

"I thought you might like to know

that J passed away in the night," the voice at the other end of the phone told me. "Like"?  No. Need to know? Yes. We once had a close association with J and still have a close association with her children so it was important that we know but "like" to know? No. She was "only 64" and that is scarcely "old" by modern standards. She will not be there for the birth of another grandchild, due in a few weeks.
We say things in odd ways. Most people I know use "passed away" instead of "died". There are plenty of other euphemisms or "avoidance" phrases in all languages. It is as if, by couching some ideas in vague terms, they will do less harm or be less painful - or perhaps just be less embarrassing. They may help to make an awkward situation less awkward.
One of our neighbours came over the other day. He was checking on his own next door neighbour who had been taken off in an ambulance. Did we know anything? I took the opportunity to ask about the mother of their "adopted" Mongolian student. I knew she was very ill. The student had gone home to see her.
            "Dead," he said bluntly. It was less startling than it might have been because that is his way. He does not avoid things. He confronts them.
He came over again a couple of days ago. This time he brought his brother with him having just been to another state to get him. They are searching for accommodation for him. His brother has lung cancer. He is a very sick man. It is immediately obvious there is something wrong, even before he speaks - something he can only do in a whisper. Our neighbour is blunt about this too.
There was no avoidance of any issue. His brother was the same. He was here for treatment which "might give me a few more months". It was said without embarrassment or any sort of self-pity. It made meeting his brother much easier. I have seen him since and chatted quite easily to him. I am not sure I would feel so relaxed if his dire state of health had been couched in euphemistic terms.
I wonder if we do ourselves and others any real favours when we use euphemisms? Does the veneer of social politeness and apparent regard for the feelings of others in such situations just make it harder for them as well as us?

"So, what are they going to pay you?"

I have been asked that question more than once. People assume you are going to get a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. In reality I get a small allowance for caring for my father and the rest of my workload is "voluntary".  It is "voluntary" in the sense I do not get paid for it but the reality is that failing to do my job means other people cannot do theirs and that means that hospitals and schools do not get built, roads do not get made, bridges do not get repaired, ancient buildings crumble, operations are not performed etc. My payment is knowing those things get done, that I have had a very small part in providing the communications necessary to get the work done.
And, this morning, I realise I actually get well paid even in financial terms. There is a front page story saying that the Thai government is offering to have cars made there for $Aus1.12 an hour (less than 50p at the current rate of exchange). If they succeed then the workers will think themselves well paid. Our local unions will be furious at the low rate of pay being offered and the jobs being lost off shore but there is another side to the story.
I know someone whose family runs a pharmaceutical/laboratory supplies business in Thailand. They have been there for many years. Their staff have been with them for many years too. Positions are often handed on to the next generation in the family. Working for them is considered to be very good fortune. The physical conditions are excellent, the hours are good, the other conditions are good and the pay is good.
They still make a healthy profit. Some of it gets ploughed back into the local community. They needed a good water supply but when they built it they extended it to the local community. It was a first innocent gesture which won them a lot of support. They learned from that and realised it was the way to go.
Now there's a school and a medical clinic with a small hospital. There are other facilities as well.  It did not all come at once. The local community was made to feel that they had earned it, that it was not charity or a gift.
There are problems of course. There always will be. Corruption is ever present. Even so it is a community which works well
I know though that the workers there earn slightly less per week than I do. I do not have to feed myself or house myself on the money I get. They do. Yes, living expenses are different there but the fact remains that I am better "paid" than they are.