If you try to hide information

or "misinformation" then it is more likely people will believe it.  Someone needs to tell the government this. Their "Digital Duty of Care" Bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

At first the Prime Minister tried to tell us that it was not about trying to censor what we can see and hear but he is now suggesting that "extreme" views could be considered "misinformation". As such they could be removed by no less a person than the Minister. The Minister would have the power to decide what should be removed too.

It does not matter how the government tries to explain this Bill or how hard it tries to wrap it in terms of "protection" it remains dangerous. It is, and always will be, censorship. 

We have censorship in this country, of course we do. There is what most right minded people would consider censorship of pornography, of violence and like material. The very making of such material will normally have other penalties attached to it if the creators are caught. This is not about that sort of censorship at all.

Does this Bill cover something like views about "climate change" the government does not approve of? We are being told "no, of course not" but the reality is that the Prime Minister said as much when he mentioned "extreme" views yesterday while in New York. Does it cover a view about "gender". We already have a problem with that. Does it mean that this can no longer be discussed? Do we all need to accept the current legislation without being able to debate it?

They are just two major issues we hear a great deal about but the Digital Duty of Care Bill would allow the government to go much further than that. It could prevent valid criticism of the government and debate about issues of concern.

Many people in this country are unaware of the fact this government is actually giving millions of dollars to media outlets. Overall it hands out $1.8bn to the media. Most of it goes to the ABC and SBS but there are still substantial amounts handed to other broadcasters. All governments have been required to fund the ABC and SBS is similarly treated. What is not the same are the large sums given to commercial interests. The idea that they are not expected to give back anything in return is ridiculous. An analysis of the way matters are reported, even when they are being critical, is enough to suggest  otherwise.

The reality is that the media needs government funding to function. It can no longer rely on people paying for their news or entertainment funded by those services. That is enough to prevent the media from being too critical. Bring in a Digital Duty of Care Bill and there will be even less criticism or analysis. The Bill needs to fail.   

"We looked you up on AI"

and it was all wrong."

There were two indignant young people looking at me. I looked at their father and he told me, "Lesson about not relying on an internet search."

He shooed them off to find actual books to read. Then he pulled out his very fancy phone and showed me the search they had done. If it was not so serious it might have been rather funny.

The children know me. They knew the answers to the questions they were trying to ask. I say "trying" to ask because they were asking their questions in a very straightforward way. They were doing what an adult who has no knowledge whatsoever of a topic might do. 

The first difficulty, that my name on the internet is slightly different from the one they know me by was explained to them by their father. He encouraged them to use that one so they would get some results.  He felt that was reasonable but, from there, he encouraged them to ask the questions. 

The two children found how they asked a question mattered as much as what they asked.  They discovered they needed to have some information before they started. They discovered what that information was could influence the answers they were getting. Staying on track and getting back on track when a question did not give them answer frustrated them.  Going down rabbit holes of other information was something that did not work for them. Their father moved them away from those. 

They were eventually left with some information about me they know is right. The older of the two has new ideas about how questions need to be asked. Both of them still have a long way to go before they can do a search which might lead to answers about anything. It was a lesson which will almost certainly stay with them. 

Their father and I had a quiet laugh. Apparently this blog is written from the perspective of a cat. It is not of course but we both think it might be simpler if it really was written by a cat. 

We are losing markets.

not the "markets" the economy talks about but the smaller markets we once depended on. 

Yesterday I saw the message about the Bowerbird market not happening in November without surprise. The reasons given were the increased cost of running it at the venue it has been held at for so long and the smaller number of people who were prepared to have a stall at it. 

I have no doubt both of these are true. There are also other reasons. There is a huge difference between running a stall at a market now and the sort of stalls which appeared at country fetes or school events when I was a mere kitten.

At the two teacher school I attended there were no such events or stalls but the "town" (in reality not much more than a hamlet) had an annual "Show Day". It would be held on "the oval". This was nothing more than a patch of land which had been marked out as one with the goal posts for the "footy" at each end. The boundaries were marked out from time to time by someone but it was a "make do" affair. The summer cricket pitch would get marked out at the beginning of the season and wiped out when the football season began. 

On Show Day there would be tractors and "utes" (pick up lorries) and pens with cattle and sheep on the oval. There might be new farm equipment on display. 

None of this was of any real interest to us children. We were much more interested in the single, small "show ride" that went round and round to some sort of tinny popular music and the stall which sold sweets.

The sweets were home made. They had to be home made. The women made them. There was nowhere to buy anything like that. The local shop sold a little bit of chocolate, "Life Savers" and a few packets of things like licorice. It was not unusual for them to have "run out" of all those things. The sweet stall was where we stocked up. We saved our pocket money for the stall. Would there be what we wanted there? Would we get there before everyone else?

Mum of course tried to prevent all this. She was largely successful. Our pocket money was severely limited. We did not dare spend the sixpence for Sunday collection the next day either. No, there was a limit on what we could buy. 

We tried to tell Mum that toffee apples were good for us. They were a form of fruit weren't they? Somehow we never managed to snag a toffee apple. (Looking back I suspect the apples inside them were not that good. It was hard to get apples. They came by train from the city and were grown in the hills behind where I now live. Bush kids did not get them daily.) 

There were "toffees" in "patty pan" cases. They would have "hundreds and thousands" sprinkled on top. We could usually get one of those. Then there would be "peanut brittle" made with the more butterscotch sort of toffee and Russian toffee, a sort of caramel made with condensed milk and there were marshmallows in square ice cream cones. There must have been other things but I know these were the things we wanted to buy if there were any left by the time we were allowed to get there.

There would be a "cake stall" as well. The women would make cakes and biscuits and compete with one another over the even sizes and the icing. The way an almond was place in the middle of the ginger nuts mattered. The "butterfly" cakes would have home-made jam and "cream" in them. We wondered how they were made because Mum never made cake like that. Cake was for birthdays only. She just did not have time for baking. We all hoped she would buy one of the luscious looking sponge cakes. Would she buy quandong  jam and make us eat it? 

I wonder what happens at country shows now. Do things still get made and sold? I suppose they must but there is almost certainly not as much of it. Peanuts would almost certainly be banned. There would need to be warnings on labels along with a list of all the ingredients. 

And what about the city events? I have not heard of cake stalls at school events in quite a while. Go to any other sort of craft fair where food is sold and there are so many rules and regulations I would not even consider being involved. We are told it is all about "safety" and making sure "allergies" are properly considered. If something goes wrong then the consequences can be severe. 

If you do have a stall of any sort it will be hedged around with all sorts of occupational health and safety regulations. Almost anything you make will be considered a hazard of some sort. There will be labels about environmental issues and whether items are "responsibly" sourced. Insurance, once never even thought about, is now an expense that needs to be factored in.  Even the age of those attending and helping will be an issue. Almost anything that can become an issue will be an issue.

Is it any wonder that big markets sometimes do not go ahead? The craft fair I once attended no longer comes to this state. It simply became too expensive. The venues built for events like that have raised their prices to cover their overheads. Prices spiral up and up and then the event collapses. 

I am fortunate I experienced those country shows and the country cooking. I cannot remember any of us being sick - except from more toffee than was good for us! 

 

There was nobody at the airport to meet him

but our Prime Minister was boasting about a meeting with a very senior figure related to AI. He has told us how important this meeting was. He has told us how that same person was listening to him say how important the new laws restricting social media access are.

Now our Prime Minister, popularity rating around thirty-two percent, is about to tell the United Nations this country needs a seat on the Security Council. This is the same Prime Minister who, just a couple of days ago, dismissed the problems of the care and well being of very young indigenous children as a "state issue, not a federal one". (Of course the issue of fighting fires was a federal issue rather than a state one when his then opponent was in power. We can ignore that...can't we?)

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that a seat on the Security Council means very little, if anything. The Security Council has no power. It can pretend it has but the decisions it makes mean nothing. Nobody has to abide by them. There was actually one of those rare unanimous decisions earlier this month. It related to Sudan and the effect of that decision on the ground has been zilch, zero, nothing at all. If anything the situation is worse than before. Recently an aid worker I had once written a communication board for lost his life there. He had spent a very long day trying to do something for severely malnourished children and was shot on his way to a few hours rest. That is how effective the Security Council is. A seat on it appears to be nothing more than something to boast about. It is not going to make any difference. Forget about it and do the real work, the hard work, elsewhere.

Then there is the issue of the attempts to stop under sixteens accessing social media. That sounds so good, so responsible. It is a real "look at us" moment.  I do not for a moment deny that social media harms but trying to stop young people from accessing it will not work. Trying to stop harm by curtailing their use of it and bringing in legislation to try and curb other types of "harmful" speech or "misinformation" is not going to work either. I may not like some, indeed many, things which are being said and done on social media but it is better it is out there. It is better seen by all so it can be countered rather than have it travelling at the speed of light through other channels. It is much, much better than giving any government control over what is seen and heard.

I suspect that, even among those who know who he is, our Prime Minister, is seen as being of no real consequence. He is seen as the little man he really is. He might appear to matter here but he does not have any real influence on the international stage. That he can fly to the other side of the world as leader of a supposed democracy, even a small one, and not get greeted by someone of importance says a great deal. 

Perhaps it was an oversight - but I doubt it. It is much more likely that others are looking at his moves to control us with some alarm.  

There should be no need to protest

about women's rights or the right of women to women only spaces. If there are protests about this then they should not need a police presence to shield the protestors from others.

There was a gathering in a neighbouring state yesterday. I have been sent a couple of pictures. They are disturbing, very disturbing.

Have we really gone backwards so far it is necessary to shield women from being attacked because others object to their pleas, demands, requests (call it what you will) for safe and single sex places? Initially the police were not even going to attend the event. When it actually happened there were apparently some police in riot gear keeping others away.

My paternal great-grandmother would be appalled by what happened. Great-grandma was, from all accounts, more than able to handle herself, her family and the wider community. I am told there was many a supposedly tough man who meekly did as he was told when she was there. I often wish I had met her but suspect she would not be impressed by the fact I am not, according to my family, "nearly assertive enough".  That said, I do care deeply about the rights of other people.

It has been more than a century since women obtained the right to vote in this state. Great-grandma did not chain herself to the fences but, if the stories I was told are correct, she had plenty to say about a woman's right to vote. She also had plenty to say about a woman's right to work, to own property and be treated with respect. I know her views would almost certainly now be considered "conservative" in some ways but they were unusual then. My great-grandmother and others held views which were considered radical in their day. 

Now it seems, for some, it is wrong not to allow men into women's spaces. No, you do not need to "be transgender" in order to gain access now. All you need to do is say you are. A man can put on a dress and apply some lipstick and say, "I am a woman".  Views on whether this is right or wrong vary widely. I suspect my great-grandmother would have had strong views and they would not all have been related to the prevailing views of her time.

I am certain of one thing however. Great-grandma would not have protested in support of those who used sharpened umbrella tips to intimidate and harm others. If you need to resort to that sort of behaviour then you are on the "wrong" side of decency and respect for other people.  

You can think whatever you like

as long as you do not say it...and as long as you agree with me. You cannot be "apolitical" and I do not care what your politics are...as long as you come out and say you agree with me.  You have to support "the cause". You must go along with the only point of view there is.

I am only vaguely aware of who this Ed Sheeran person is. I know that may sound ridiculous but I am not one to follow any sort of popular culture. I may have heard him perform but I am not aware of it. I will not pretend to understand what the current uproar is about. I have a vague idea that someone else appeared on a stage at some sort of event with this man and said two words which were, and still are, regarded as highly political. They are words which are, like it or not, taking sides.  

Apparently the issue has been muddied by Mr Sheeran because he has refused to take sides, refused to acknowledge the two words and repeat them. He is being told he can think what he likes but he cannot stay silent. He has to agree with the other bloke and with a slew of other "artists". There is apparently only one point of view which is correct, only one way of thinking in all this.

Think on that please. It is happening elsewhere as well. We keep being told that there is only one "correct" way to think about all sorts of issues. There are the obvious issues like "climate change" and "global warming", "transgender rights" and the use use of "puberty blockers", "abortion" and "euthanasia" and then "refugees" and "immigration".  They are big issues. They are also complex issues, far more complex than most people believe. 

Despite their complexity we are all too often told there is only one "right" or "correct" way to think about the issue. If we do not think the way we are told we should think then there is something wrong with us. We will lose friendships. In more extreme cases we can be taken to court, fined and even sent to prison for simply disagreeing. We become pariahs. People don't want to know us.

Apparently Mr Sheeran has been told it is not possible to remain "apolitical" about the matter in question. He must come out and support the view espoused by so many of his fellow entertainers. It does not matter that a concert tour may no longer go ahead. All that matters is that he supports the view of the person who used the stage at a concert to make a political statement.  That it may alienate others is of no consequence to those who are demanding this. 

Yes of course musicians and "rock stars" get political. Writers and artists get political too. They all hold a wide range of political views. That is how it should be. Most of them will want others to know their views. That is how it is going to happen. It is when they demand others hold the same views as themselves that it becomes unacceptable.  

I don't have to agree with you but I will defend your right to speak providing you do the same to me.  

 

We have to stop spending

so much money. 

This country currently has a "AAA" credit rating. I am not sure how that happened or how the present government has managed to maintain it. We are, to put it bluntly, deeply in debt. 

That debt has risen dramatically since Covid but it is not, as the present government would have it, due to Covid. Some, perhaps most, of the measures were justified then. There are other expenses now and they cannot be justified in the same way.

We are supposedly heading towards the mythical "net zero" and the cost far outweighs the benefits. What we are really paying for is an attempt for our small population to be a big player on the international stage. It is not working. 

This is not about "climate change" or the debate about whether it actually exists. It is about what might actually work in a country which has a population much smaller than the population of California (39m) or Texas (31m). The land mass of mainland USA is only about five percent larger than ours. While the USA has some desert and more sparsely populated areas these are nothing compared with our most remote areas. We keep being told "nuclear won't work" and "nuclear is dangerous" and "nuclear is too expensive" and all those things combined. We sell coal to China, coal we cannot use ourselves because it might add to our "carbon footprint". It all adds up in end - adds up to more expense.

Under enormous pressure we brought in a scheme which was intended to show we care for some of the most vulnerable people in society. It should have worked but it was badly designed and many people with disabilities are missing out while other people (or those responsible for them) are getting assistance they may enjoy but do not need in the same way.  It has proved enormously expensive and taking benefits away from those who do not really need them is, for the government in power, an electoral nightmare.

For generations we have continued to isolate indigenous people on the grounds that we are preserving their "culture", their "languages". their "family structures" and "family values". In reality we are not doing those things at all even while we genuinely believe those things are important. We have put billions of dollars into all this and many indigenous groups are no better off. 

Now we worry about housing for future generations but still persist in the belief that a single unit of housing with land around it is how it should be done. The reality is different.

Last night's news was full of how anxious farmers and arborists are about bringing in the upcoming food crops. They rely on imported and cheap labour from overseas - the people who are prepared to work hard for short periods of time. Some of those people will be relying on this work to send money home to feed their own families. Acknowledging that does not mean we should not also acknowledge there are many younger, fitter and more able young people who could also help but do not want to work in or to the same conditions. They rely on tax payer funded benefits instead.

All those things cost money and they are just the big things. Taxpayers fund sport because it is seen as "popular". It is not doing enough to fund libraries or publishing or skill building.

We allow non-citizens who have committed serious criminal offences to appeal when their right to stay is rejected and many of those appeals succeed. It is a costly process which can take years. That is just one small part of a process of migration in and out of the country which needs to be reviewed for the sake of everyone involved. 

There is more of course. Those are perhaps the biggest issues, issues where money could be spent more wisely with better long term outcomes for all. Electoral popularity and staying in power for as long as possible will always win out. I just need to stop spending anything in order to pay for all of this.