"There are 350,580 recipients with autism"

 I was told in the email sent to me. I had queried something and the figures were sent to me in a chart. 

"The NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) is not working." I was told and the person telling me this was clearly angry and frustrated.

 I was concerned from the start that some would take advantage of it and this is clearly what is happening. Below are the figures for "disability" in this country. We are a "crook" lot aren't we? The numbers are through the roof...if you believe them.

Much of the problem lies in the first line. The idea that 44.9% of recipients need funding because of "autism" as their primary disability is something we need to be investigating urgently. I can almost hear the "but you don't know..." and "you have no idea..." coming at me right now. But I do know and I do have some idea. How many of these are children who are not diagnosed with any other disability?  

Let me start by saying that severe and profound autism are severely and profoundly disabling, not just of the individual but of everyone around them. Those with the condition and those who care for them need financial, physical and emotional support. It is a twenty-four hour, seven days of the week issue that can impact an entire family.

Now, let me go on. A child who is "fidgety" or has a problem attending in a classroom or whose behaviour does not always meet the standard considered acceptable is not "autistic". That child may or may not have a problem but it is not a disability. It is an issue which may need to be addressed but it is not a disability. Just because your little darling is not top of the class (and would not be top of the class even if they were doing the work) does not mean they are disabled. There is every chance your child is within the normal range of ability and is not paying attention. They would prefer to be doing something else. Be thankful if that is the case because the parents who have children who are not within the normal range of ability are often feeling overwhelmed.  

Yes, the scheme was started with the best of intentions but it has been hi-jacked by some who see it as an acceptable way of explaining why their child is not top of the class and not always well behaved. The idea that their child might not be because they are in fact "normal" is not acceptable.

I looked down that list. The numbers receiving assistance for other disabilities is about what I would expect but I also know there are still people who are not getting all the help they need and some who are not getting any at all. 

We did away with "special schools" and "opportunity classes" on  "inclusion" grounds - and to save money. We have attempted to reduce the number of people on disability pensions. The NDIS has taken over from that and the cost has exploded. It was a mistake. All it has done has made some people see "free money" and take advantage. Getting NDIS money is not supposed to be "easy" and for many people it has not been. Once on the scheme it can be addictive too. The child has progressed or a permanent solution to an adult problem has been found but money keeps coming. Monitoring all that is impossible. 

Yes, I know all that. I hear from parents and other recipients. I still do not believe that there are 350,000 something individuals with such severe autism they need the level of support they are likely getting. Let's work on this so that those who really need support are getting it.   

Someone has stolen a teddy bear

from a child with Down Syndrome. It might not seem like much to most people. "Oh, just a retarded kid. She'll get over it" attitude is the one which seems to prevail amongst a certain class of people. Others have been much more concerned. They have offered to buy her a new bear, an identical bear. Thank you but no thank you.

The child's mother is absolutely correct here. She does not want her child to be given a new bear that looks like the old one. She wants the old bear to be returned. Why? Because Down Syndrome or not the child knows her own bear. 

I am with the mother on this. I am with the child on this. It has to be the original bear. This is not a "lost" bear. It is a bear which was stolen. Someone took it away from where it was looking out across the fence. It was tied to the fence. Someone had to come along and cut the ties and take it away. Why on earth would you do that?

Years ago now I found a soft toy rabbit in our local area. It was obviously much loved. I looked around for "lost" notices. I put up some "found" notices. I mentioned it in any number of places.

And then I got the phone call. Did it have.... Yes, it did. Can we come right now and get it? Yes, they could. It took about twenty minutes for them to get there. The small child who owned it looked as if he had not slept for a week. His parents looked much the same. I handed over the toy and the small boy began to cry. One hand held the toy by the leg and the other was clutching my trouser leg. We all three hugged. His parents wanted to reward me but there was no reward on earth better than seeing the joy on the child's face and hearing the sobs of equal joy.  

The Senior Cat showed the small boy how to do a very simple "magic trick". The small boy's father quickly learned it so they could teach the rabbit and they went off - a complete family again. 

I saw them several times over the next few years before they returned to their home country. The toy rabbit was the last thing the little boy's great-grandmother had made for him and she would not be there when they got back. The child would never know her but his parents did. Yes, that toy was part of the family. I suspect it still is. 

It is remembering that and the way my mother gave our toys away as we moved from one place to the next which makes me so aware of how important that bear is. Mum did not do it intending to be cruel. She simply had no reason to feel sentimental. That we might did not occur to her. I would still like to have my train set.

Anyone with any conscience at all would give that bear back.  

Hunting for a lost parcel

is something which irritates, annoys, infuriates me. 

A friend in the United States had sent me "something". She did not tell me what the "something" was or how large or small it was. No, it was to be a "surprise". It was a "thank you for the hours of work you put in". 

That was nice of her, indeed of the whole team behind her. I was more than happy to help. There was a small boy who was going to be a lot less frustrated as a result of a team effort. All I had to do was direct things from afar...and at odd hours. 

No, that was not the problem. I had ordered from the company in question (yes, yarn of course!) and they had my old address. The dear friend who ordered the yarn used my new address but the system somehow rejected it and went back to my old address.

How do I know all of this? Because my friend sent me an email yesterday saying it had been delivered. She had just checked the "tracking" and there it was saying "delivered and left in a safe place".  Oh. I thought about this.

I have never wanted to go back to where the Senior Cat and I were living. It brings back too many memories and reminds too strongly of how much I miss him. I know the people who live there now have changed things and that the street is changing too. The neighbours across the way have told me that. 

But...would they have the parcel? It was supposed to have arrived on Thursday. They might have returned it already if they had been out and about. If it was small it could go in a post box with "RTS" on it for "return to sender". 

I swallowed hard and put on my bike helmet. Armed with a note for the people now living there I pedalled off. 

They were home. They saw me through the window. They have no curtains. We were told to take the old curtains down and they have never replaced them. 

The mother came to the door with a smile on her face. Yes, she knew who I was. I explained about the parcel. Yes, they had the parcel. They had been away for two nights and it was there when they came home. 

The parcel was duly produced and passed over. Did I want to come in and see what they had done to the place?

I declined. It would have felt intrusive and I really did not want to see how different it is now. 

We were told that they were likely living there as a temporary measure. That they would move on and renovate yet another property. There have been changes to regulations since then and they will likely to stay a lot longer. 

As I was leaving the mother said quietly to me, "We like it here. We have heard a lot about you and your father. It has helped us get to know the neighbours. Thank you."

I was the one supposed to be thanking her but I pedalled off feeling a bit more comfortable. The new regulations may not be to everyone's advantage but I hope they might provide the new family with the same good neighbours we had.   

"Jason Arday is dead"

came the blunt statement from someone I know. I knew who he was and I knew some of the story. It is a very upsetting end to the story for him but it is by no means the end of the story. 

As someone else pointed out Arday was primarily responsible because he was not honest but the university was also responsible for not doing a thorough check of his credentials before employing him. The government there can be held responsible for the demands they are making about "diversity, equality and inclusion". The rest of us are also responsible for going along with all this and not speaking up. 

There are similar problems here but they have not, so far, resulted in suicide that I am aware of. We have a "professor" of "indigenous agriculture" who, despite his claims to the contrary, is not a member of any indigenous tribe. Research by more than one person outside academia has shown his ancestry is in no way related to any "aboriginal" tribe. He still holds the position of professor and still continues to make the same nonsensical claims about aboriginal "farming" and agriculture and ways of living. He is being permitted, indeed encouraged, to continue teaching this to students. They are being expected to regurgitate it - and they will if they want to pass. 

One university has introduced a compulsory subject for all students which touches on all these things. No, you do not dare to disagree. 

There are "subjects" being researched and taught here which do not have any basis in sound research. They are there to satisfy the demands of "diversity, equality and inclusion".  They are not there to satisfy any sort of academic rigour.

Yes, we are supposed to be a multi-cultural country. If we are to be one then "diversity" is a given.  For me "equality" and "inclusion" are a given. It is what any normal, ordinary and decent person does.  It means equal opportunities and inclusion based on those opportunities. It does not mean excluding others just to make way for those who are less able or less qualified. If an equally qualified and able person satisfies all the other requirements then it may well be a very good thing to appoint them if they meet the demand for "diversity" but they need to be at very least as able and as well qualified but ability and qualifications need to be the first consideration. Failing to do put those first is not doing anyone any favours.

Arday did no favours to his fellow "black" academics. He has actually done a great deal of harm. The university did no favours either. It is going to take those responsible some time to regain the trust of others - if they can at all. It has left many more people with a low opinion of what happens inside universities and yet more opposition to demands for diversity, for equality and for inclusion simply for the sake of those things. 

Something good may come out of this if we can start to think of people as individuals first and members of any group second.  

 

So you want to write a history

of the local area?

Our local council is looking ahead to the 175th Anniversary of the council area. It has therefore been announced they intend to spend $190,000 of rate payer funds on producing a history of the area. Sounds good?

There are local history groups and they are apparently expected to work together to make this happen. It all sounds rather lovely doesn't it?

There has been an immediate backlash suggesting it is a waste or ratepayer funds. My opinion has naturally been sought by a few locals who oppose the project, are bewildered by it, who support the project but not in the proposed form and so on. 

What has not been mentioned in the press is that there are already two books about the area which were written by a trained historian as well as some smaller works. I happen to know about them because my parents were involved in a small way in the research for the second. That book is a history of the church on the hill behind us but it covers much more than that. It covers more than that because the church was there first and it was effectively the place which governed the community before there were local councils. The history of the settlement of the area does not extend very far back when you compare it withe so much history in the United Kingdom.

The current proposal does not seem to involve a trained historian. It involves volunteers and a "coordinator". Will it work?  I know some of those who will likely be involved. They are intelligent people but they are not historians. Chemists and bankers do not necessarily know how history is researched and written,

It is also intended to fund a $10,000 grant to "indigenous" people to cover the history before white settlement. I do not understand the purpose of such a grant. Speaking to other people they do not understand it either. It would appear to be a political gesture designed to make us believe that there is a way of accessing some special knowledge not available to the rest of us. 

I suppose it is both these things which leave me wondering just what the project is intended to do. At very least the work which has already been well and carefully done should be used in any future endeavours. This is not just a suggestion aimed at saving time and money it is because, while the work needs to be updated, there is a great deal more material that did not go into the original book. There were some interviews conducted. Many of those people are no longer alive but some are. They are also elderly, very elderly. I doubt the groups have the skills to interview them quickly. Going through original materials also takes time and care. There is a need to be alert to clues as to where more material might be found. You also need to know when to stop gathering material. I could go on but most people will see genuine problems here.

The other grant with respect to indigenous people is a waste of money. There is no written history prior to white settlement but that is only part of the problem. There is nobody alive now who has such a strong genuine connection to the past that they can add to what little we have been told we know. Even that is doubtful. The grant is going to a plains group. As far as anyone can tell their history and culture is quite different from that of the people who lived in the hills. They did not mix much. They were not disposed to be friendly towards one another. There are no documents recording their history. We can say people lived in the area. There is a little that can be picked up or guessed at through a few artefacts but anyone who attempts to say "this is the language they spoke" or "this is what their stories were" is simply lying or being fooled. It is a problem faced by archaeologists and cannot be solved by giving grants to political groups who claim some indigenous heritage.

History is important. We can learn a great deal from it. The Gaelic proverb  "cuimhnich air na daoine bhon tàinig thu" or "remember the people where you come from" is one I found when helping my father's cousin with our clan history. It seems to me that we could all pay more attention to it - but it must be done with care and skill.  I am not sure it is going to happen here. 

The little darlings skipped school

yesterday. They went to "protest" on the steps of the state's Parliament House.

I was supposed to attend a meeting in the city. It was cancelled because of the "event". 

The person who cancelled informed me about the event later. He had to get into the adjacent building and was booed and heckled on the way in. That he had nothing to do with the protest was apparently the point rather than not the point. According to the protestors he should have been joining in their revolt. Anyone passing should have been joining in according to some of them. The people they were protesting about are, according to them, that dangerous.

These young people were using their "right" to "freedom of speech" to call for another group to be banished. I cannot say "banned" but many of those in the group may well have agreed with a ban if such a thing were possible. That group is political party. It is not a radical far right group attempting to bring in a different legal system or espousing anti-Semitic views. It has a homosexual person in a prominent position in the party. It is not, despite reports to the contrary, anti-immigration or opposed to all environmental measures. 

So, what was it they were protesting about? They do not like the "policies" of that particular group? That is up to them. I happen to think the so-called policies lack any detail and are likely unworkable. I would not vote for the party myself and I know surprisingly few people who will admit that they might. There are other ways of getting my own views across. They don't include attending expletive ridden rallies organised by a student who is a member of an extreme left group.

The person I was supposed to be meeting went into his office. He could hear what was being said. He is most definitely not a fan of the political party being protested about but he has seen many protests come and go. He accepts they are part of student life. 

This protest? "I would like to have taken some of them in, sat them down, chatted to them. I would like to know whether they really believe the drivel they were being fed. My guess is the majority of them were not thinking at all. They were caught up in the thrill of the protest, the time out of school." 

Yes, I suspect he is right. It is said most students were university students or from the two city high schools. There were about a thousand of them. That is all. They did not come in their thousands from all over the state. There were far more people who protested the Vietnam war when I was that age. I suspect we might, even without the benefits of easy social media communications, have known more about the issues we were concerned about. 

The "leader" of the protest is a young radical with ideas that often appeal to the young until they think about them. They appeal until how they might be implemented and what the consequences might be become apparent.

The little darlings will be back at school today. Some of them will be enthusiastically informing those who did not go how much they missed by not attending. I hope they discover they also missed an important lesson or two or three.  Late yesterday afternoon I also overheard one who apparently had attended saying it was "boring".  Hopefully more of the attendees will feel that way and work towards being able to actively and positively participate in the future of this country.   

Transgender athlets who compete

on women's teams are again in discussion. The football people have just cleared a transgender person to play on women's teams. There were, and still are, concerns because this person is considerably larger and stronger than others on the same team or the teams they play against.

Comments are now being made by well known figures and not just those who are required to play on the same or on opposing teams. I have also heard a good many other comments from local people. The general consensus is that this person should not be allowed to participate if others are at risk.

Some clubs are now saying they would prefer to forfeit rather than play on or with teams who include trans players. Those at the top are demanding they continue playing.

Somewhere along the line we seem to have lost something called "common" sense.  This is something which would say, "some people are different" and "it is not always possible to be inclusive". It would recognise potential harm to the majority. 

There are some things it is not possible to be inclusive about. Is the exclusion of this person really any different from excluding a blind person from driving a car on the roads? The blind person may want to drive but the safety of others demands they do not. 

I am a short and not very mobile person. I have a poor sense of balance. It would not take much to knock me over. If I had wanted to play basketball in my childhood I would have been told I could not. This would not simply have been because I was hopeless at such things but because it was considered "dangerous". I would have been knocked over. There were some rare occasions when the team did include me. I would be the person with the ball at the very start of the match. My instructions would be to "throw the ball to X... and then get off the court". Even so there would be an adult there ready to grab me and get me off safely. The opposing side was pretty good about it too. They knew the game was going on safely without me. It was the team and the game which mattered.

Now it seems that the individual matters more. In this case it is an individual who has all the characteristics of a sex with whom that individual does not "identify".  Teams are being asked to consider the individual before the group. That can be important but in this instance the individual does have alternatives. They are not barred from playing. It is just more appropriate and safer for everyone else if they do not play with that group. Is that exclusion or is it something else?