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.