There is yet another land agent

coming to look at the property today. 

I am growing increasingly disturbed at the way the company responsible for the execution of the Senior Cat's will is handling all this. Whatever their "processes" need to be this is bordering on the ridiculous.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly that they use a business of some sort in another state to advise them who to engage to sell the property. Oh yes, they assure me that this is done in the best interests of the estate. The problems however are obvious. Interstate companies do not know local areas.

I was supposed to be contacted earlier in the week. I was "advised" to make myself available. Wanting to get things moving I made myself available. There was no contact made by the agents who were supposed to be contacting me. It delayed other things I needed to get on with but I gritted my teeth and kept my claws retracted. 

At the end of the business day I advised the contact at the executor company that no contact had been made. I suggested they go with one or the other of those who had made contact. No, that would not do. They need at least one more "appraisal". They would advise someone else to come and "advised" me to be "available". I went to do some shopping for Middle Cat who is home but unable to leave the house. The agent called me and was at least reasonable enough to suggest the following day. It matters not to such people that this is the weekend. I agreed.

But why? The house has now been "appraised" seven times - this will be the eighth - and "valued" twice. I am under pressure to keep the place ultra-clean and ultra-tidy. Our land agent of choice (the one Middle Cat knows well) has of course seen the house in a state of chaos. It did not bother him. It is what he expected to see when packing was taking place.

On top of all that a friend dropped off some new cleaning materials which she had to remove from a house belonging to an aunt who has gone into a nursing home. There were bags of these - seven garbage bags in all. S... went off on holiday for the next eight weeks leaving a note to say, "Can you pass them on to that church...?" I knew what she meant but I could not rely on Middle Cat to drop them off this time so I sent frantic messages to the lovely person in the office there. An hour later I had a call from D..., the priest. He would come and collect it all for me. 

He arrived and stacked it all in the boot of his car. He told me how pleased everyone was that I was staying in the district. It made me feel a bit better. Now if my BIL and N...have worked out how to get the two big armchairs I don't use to the charity N... works for...  I am taking a deep breath and hoping the executor company will just get on with the job as well. 

We have just taken a step backwards

or perhaps it is a leap?

The ban on under 16s using social media passed the Senate of federal parliament last night. The arguments for the ban were along the lines of "this is what all parents want", "this is how we stop bullying" and "this is how we improve the mental health of adolescents" and much more.

It is not "what all parents want" by any means. Some parents will welcome it - and rightly so. A small minority may not care and will possibly allow their children to access it under their own names. (Interesting question is who will then be responsible if their little darlings are caught.) 

It will not stop bullying. It may be less difficult to broadcast it but bullying will continue - and may become more physically violent or theft related. 

It will probably not improve the mental health of adolescents. The research to date suggests there is a very weak link, if any, between mental health and the use of social media. We will have to wait and see if there is any change in research outcomes but that sort of research is fraught with difficulties.

The other issues which arise such as "age verification" are not matters for social media organisations to become involved in. The responsibility for this has to come from parents in the first instance - and they are the people who should be fined if they knowingly allow their under sixteen to use banned social media. Schools can play a part in this but the primary responsibility has to lie with parents. 

And then there are the teens who will tech-savvy enough to get around the bans. Can the government really believe they can ban every citizen of this country from using a VPN in order to try an implement this ban? That raises all sorts of security issues. Can you really prevent them from doing it anywhere in the world?

There is also a real social and safety issue here - communication between families and friends, migrants and refugees will be hindered by this ban. Children may never get to know grandparents and other relatives who live elsewhere. It was that way once - at most a three minute call on one day of the year. Do we want that to happen now when people are moving around more and more? How does a child communicate with a parent abroad for work? Do they go back to a supervised phone call on an old fashioned phone? Will it be easier for warring divorced parents to deny their children access to their absent parent?

Those things are just a start. Yes, of course social media can harm. It has been one contributing factor to the suicide of some young people and that is something no family should go through. especially loving parents. All that said though this is not something that has actually been thoroughly investigated and worked out. It won't work in its current form and there is a need to start again.

 

"Guilloutining" a Bill in the Senate

suggests that there is more than some disquiet about it.

Today is the last sitting day of our Federal parliament for this year and they have at least twenty items to push through and vote on. Some will be relatively uncontroversial. They will pass without difficulty. Others require support from people who may be wavering or who need "sweeteners" for their own purposes.

Then there are the bills which are controversial but have enough support to get through but where debate is being deliberately curtailed. One of those bills is the one relating to banning under-16s from social media. 

There was a brief window of opportunity to comment on this Bill at the committee stage. By brief I mean a week. There was very little notice given and almost nobody had a chance to appear in front of the committee - not even the "big tech" people most affected by the implementation of this. 

In addition to this some sections of the media, those in no way affected by the ban, have come out so strongly in support of the legislation. This is so much so we are being led to believe there is almost no opposition to it. 

The reality is different. There is disquiet - perhaps it is fair to say extreme disquiet - among people I know. It is seen as a step towards monitoring everyone and monitoring them all the time.  It raises questions about privacy (and the use of VPNs), about free speech, about healthy debate, about political power and influence...and much more. The failure to allow time, a lot of time, for extensive information collecting and a proper debate in the Senate suggests there are more problems in the legislation than have already been raised.

Yesterday I was asked if the government actually has the power to pass the legislation under the powers granted in the Constitution. My answer to that was, "I am not sure but it is possible that, at least in its present form, it does not." Yes, it is possible that this legislation goes too far. It is too intrusive. It is in contradiction to some international obligations to which we are signatories and more. The government obviously feels the claimed intent of the Bill protects them from being subject to these obligations but I doubt this is actually the case. 

It appears this Bill is being rushed through for political purposes and not in the best interests of those it claims to protect. Attempts to administer it are likely to result in challenges in the High Court. This may make the legal profession happy - but I doubt anyone else will be. 

Coming out of hospital

is something I fear Middle Cat should not have done. My BIL collected her yesterday but one look at her suggested she would have been better off staying there.

Yes, they were prepared to keep her there or let her go home. It was her choice and I can understand her wish to be home after four weeks but she has to be able to look after herself at least somewhat. I need to be here because of issues to deal with the sale of the house. Yes, she can call me and I can head off in the current rainy and slightly stormy conditions but only after rearranging other things and delaying matters even more. 

At this hour I imagine she is still in bed and likely to be there for some time. There will no doubt be at least one of her two cats keeping her company. That's something I suppose. Still, it is disturbing. 

My very good friend S... was here when my BIL came to finish one small job on their way home. Middle Cat did not have the energy to do more than walk inside (out of the heat) and sit on a chair to wait. I will be forever grateful to S... for the amount of help she has given me in the past few weeks. My thoughts are now turning towards what I can make for her. She loves snuggly scarves and cowls and I have something in mind for the yarn, a mohair and silk mix, but I want the design to be special. It is giving me considerable pleasure to think about it in between all the problems yet to be faced. Yes, I will get to work on it with equal pleasure in the making.

The executor company is continuing to make problems. While the price we get for the house may be higher the "valuation" of this property has come in far lower than it should have. Realistically it is nothing more than the land value. They are arguing the market value will be higher but, realistically, the valuation does affect the price. It suggests again that they are acting in their interests rather than ours but in such a way that we will have no means of challenging it. I just want all of this to be over now.  

Buying insurance

on any property seems to be fraught with difficulties.

This house is insured. It was a task I left to Middle Cat because she was doing their own property at the same time. She discussed it with me of course but the final clicks were left to her after much searching for the most reasonable deal.

Notice I did not say the "best" deal. No, that would be even more complicated. We wanted something that would work if we needed it because we had the legal responsibility to the estate.

Now I have a responsibility to ensure my own abode, or what will shortly be my own abode, is covered.  It was hard work and I am still not sure I have done all that needs to be done.

There is communal insurance of course. This is a legal imperative for any block of dwellings on a strata title. I can do little about this, indeed nothing at all while I still only have a deposit on the property. My feeling is that the insurance is on the low side but perhaps not. It needs further investigation.

But I needed "contents" insurance even if it is for nothing more than everyday items. So, the search began. I looked at website after website. I made some phone calls. Not everyone was prepared to offer insurance because it is not a "detached" dwelling. Those that were had more questions for me than I had for them. 

My age? Where was I living now? Why was I leaving? Why am I moving to that address? How much is the property worth? Do I own anything of value? Is anything worth more than....? Who else will be living there? Have I ever claimed anything on insurance before? Have I ever been convicted of a criminal offence? What is my income? Do I conduct a business from the premises? Will I have visitors? Do I smoke...take illicit drugs...drink alcohol? Will I be living there? Will it be unoccupied at any time? Why had there been no property insurance in my name for the last.....years?

I found the questions obtrusive and largely unnecessary. Many of the "representatives" tried to sell me very expensive and unnecessary cover.  Eventually I found something I could afford, enough to satisfy the conveyancer and estate agent and at least some of what I wanted. Adding anything at all to that and the price starts to almost triple and it is just so hedged around with "conditions" I wonder what value I am getting - if I am getting any at all. 

The "Misinformation" Bill

is, rightly, not going ahead.

It would never have worked - unless the government could also control the internet and the news media. Yes, it was an attempt to censor information.

I could say the same thing about the proposed ban on social media for under sixteens. It won't work unless everyone has a digital ID. The government has actually admitted this. 

For all they are trying to suggest they are doing it in the best interests of children and young people the reality is that those supporting it also see it as a way of controlling what goes on. If everyone has a digital ID then we can be tracked even more than we are already tracked. I know this blog is "monitored". If I use certain words then it is quite possible someone, somewhere will read the post. I expect that. It is the way of the world now.

There seems to be a belief that bringing in the social media ban will somehow reduce the level of "bullying" that occurs, or is said to occur. If the media is reporting this correctly then bullying has become a major problem in schools...or has it?

Much has been made of the way social media is being used to bully and harass young people. Yes, it is a problem. It is certainly easier to bully at a distance than it is face-to-face and the death of even one child or young person as a result of such bullying is one death too much. At the same time is the situation really as it is portrayed in the media and, if so, why?

Is the widespread policy of "say you are sorry and make friends" really working? It starts down in the day care centres, the pre-school centres and the kindergartens. If it really worked then it would work there and the attitude would surely carry through to older children.

It does not work of course. Human beings are not like that. We vary too much for that. We all have different levels of tolerance. We have many and varied interests and likes and dislikes. Most people manage to mask their dislike or impatience or some other negative emotion without showing other people what they are thinking. It is a learned behaviour. We are, or should be, taught this. There are things you don't do in a civilised society.

It is not the whole answer to the problem of bullying but I suspect that the apparent increase in the bullying problem may also be related to the failure to discipline from earliest childhood. This is about more than "good manners". It is about how we behave at all times in the presence of others...and perhaps even in private.

Is it time to rethink how we teach children to live together rather than expect them to be "friends" with everyone? Do we need to teach tolerance of differences without expecting children to "like" others they would not tolerate as adults?

Children get thrown together in groups. Adults can pick and choose their friends much more readily than children can. We need to recognise that and understand not everyone wants to be "friends" with everyone else.  

Sending Netanyahu off to the ICC

may sound like a good thing to many people but is it really?

 I have lost what little faith I ever had in the International Criminal Court. I was never sure it was a really good idea. The principle sounds fine but trying to implement it is something entirely different. Yes it took on someone like Milosevic but how much good did it really do? It isn't going to take on Putin or Kim or Hun Sen or Maduro...all of them at least equally deserving of a trip to the Hague.

The ICC is really a toothless tiger I suppose.

When we get news out of Gaza we need to remember that the news sources there are controlled by Hamas. Hamas wants everyone to believe the worst possible scenario. It is in their interests for this to happen. They want us to believe that the casualty numbers are enormous and that Israeli actions alone are responsible for this. They want us to believe it is Israel which is refusing to accept ceasefire arrangements. They want us to believe it Israel's fault that rockets land on buildings filled with women and children. Hamas also wants us to believe that Israel alone is responsible for the dire situation with regard to food and water and medication...and just about everything else.  

The reality of course is rather different. Hamas does not want peace. Its stated goal is the elimination of the state of Israel. The endless "ceasefire " negotiations fail not so much because of Israel's actions but because Hamas cannot afford to have a ceasefire. They cannot afford to be seen to give in at all. Their leaders simply do not care how many women and children lose their lives because of hunger and disease. They deliberately prevent people from moving away from danger zones even when the Israelis have delivered warnings. Exaggeration is another weapon of war for them, gross exaggeration.

Getting aid into the territory is difficult and UNRWA is not a cosy and lily white aid organisation which has the best interests of the people of Gaza at heart.  It is much more complex than that. It would be simplistic to say Hamas controls UNRWA but its influence is very, very strong. 

So, how culpable is Netanyahu? How culpable is Gallant? Perhaps an appearance at the Hague would answer that but I rather doubt it.  It will be too one-sided.  If we look at the countries which do not belong to the ICC we can see why. Countries like Russia and Iran may have signed the treaty but they have not ratified it - and they won't. It would open them up to too much prosecution. Countries like Pakistan and Turkey have not even signed the treaty. To do so would open up the possibility of prosecution of their leaders.

Putting out arrest warrants for two Israelis is easy enough to do but it will not achieve anything of value.  

A Jewish friend

of mine was refused service yesterday,

She has been shopping in the same little "organic" grocery for many years. It carries some things she finds hard to get anywhere else. She considered herself to be a good customer who always paid cash and took an interest in the owner's grandchildren. She had even helped by giving free tutoring to one of the children when an exam was coming up.

Yesterday she was told "please don't come again". The problem? Someone else had told the owner this was woman was Jewish. It was something the owner already knew but now there are threats from the owner's community.  The threats have been visible, a little graffiti. It is enough to make the owner stop. He's frightened.

I am appalled. My friend Y.... was very, very upset.

"What have I done to hurt them? I live here. I have never been to Israel. I do not like or support the war," she told me through tears. "I thought S.... (the owner) was a friend."

I thought he might have been too but apparently the threats have been too much. It is likely young men who are behind the threats but, before anything could be done, they would have to be caught in the act.

My indigenous friend M... knows about discrimination. His skin colour marks him out immediately. At times he has been refused service.  I have a friend who uses a wheelchair. She has faced discrimination too - perhaps because her disability is visible.  It does not matter that she is a high ranking member of the legal profession.

But Y... is much more vulnerable right now. It seems she is being held responsible for decisions made in another country, a country she has never visited and is not likely to visit. That is wrong, very wrong.

The war in the Middle East is causing war here too. People have to learn to live together. 

Home deposit?

Today I hope to pay the deposit on the new "sleeping mat" - in other words my new dwelling.

My lovely financial adviser came to see me yesterday and we juggled and juggled and have finally worked out the best way to do this. It still frightens me but he managed to bring my stress level down considerably. 

Perhaps it helps when he knows me well enough to make his own coffee? (Strong instant coffee - "the good stuff is wasted on me".) 

Then my wonderful friend S... called me and said, "It is going to be much too hot for you to pedal all that distance Cat. I am taking you and there will be no arguments." I gave in because the forecast is for 36' and P... will be here giving some things a final scrub.

The new carpet went in yesterday too. It almost makes me wish I could stay here. The rooms look bare. I keep imagining how I could fill them, how I could arrange the books and more. 

I am still feeling anxious...I don't like this major upheaval to my life...but I know I am fortunate. I will still be in the community I know. I went very briefly into the library yesterday and one of the staff said, "You know we are all pleased. Nobody here wanted to see you go." That was so nice. It makes me feel as if I can purr...just a little bit. 

Parents have to be held more responsible

for the alleged social media issues among children and teens. Schools need to be held more responsible too. 

There have been a great many people in and out of this house recently. Many of them are people I know but I do not know all of them well. Others have been strangers. All of them have said something about the proposed legislation to ban the young from social media. Only one thought "it might work". None of them believed that the "tech giants" should be responsible for implementing the ban.

I have listened rather than talked. I do not have children. I have only ever been responsible for one in the long term. The rest of my child caring experiences have been short term baby sitting experiences. Perhaps I should not be commenting at all but I found a list of papers looking for links between mental health/behavioural issues and the media interesting. It seems that, if there is a link, then the link is weak.

If that is so then what is causing the apparent increase in socially unacceptable and/or anxiety behaviours among young people? I asked that question of more than twenty people and the answers were all similar. Two things kept coming up over and over again. One was the failure of parents to have high expectations in relation to standards of behaviour. The other was what was being taught in schools. 

Yes, it is the responsibility of parents, and also schools, to teach what is acceptable behaviour. It is not the responsibility of schools alone. Parenting, it was generally agreed is hard work and it takes time. The willingness to put the time in is often hindered by the fact that it is now expected both parents will go to work - and that parenting is not considered to be work. What schools teach is sometimes at odds with what parents believe is right too and that adds to the problems.

Then there is what is being taught in schools. Instead of the "basic three R's" the people I have been listening to complained about the emphasis on issues like "climate change", gender issues, race issues and trying to instil a feeling of guilt into the young for the wrongs of the past. There was concern expressed about the culture of "victimhood" and the failure to get others to take full responsibility for their behaviours. 

More research is needed, much more research. It may be that those who are tempted to see the proposed social media ban as a solution will need to adjust their thinking. They may need to accept that they too have to take some responsibility for what their children do. 

 

I cannot find anything!

 At least it seems as if I cannot find anything. This is not just a serious source of frustrating but time consuming and...dangerous.

My BIL is still trying to insist that the house needs to be empty of absolutely everything even before the potential agents have a look. All of us have tried to explain that this is not the way things are done. We have even tried showing him photographs of how houses are sold now but he will not be convinced.

"No, come on. It has to be empty. We can't have any stuff lying around at all," he tells us.

Of course I am still here. Oh. "Well the bare minimum Cat needs," he tells us.

His idea of the "bare minimum" and mine are quite different. While he goes to work looking clean and tidy when he comes here to do something he is happy to wear the same dirty clothes for a week or more...and they are dirty, even absolutely filthy. I just cannot do that.

We have argued over the need to iron clothes. According to him "nobody irons stuff". Excuse me? Does he think the shirts he wears to the office do not get ironed? He thinks they are drip dry in the way his school shirts were drip dry...and I suspect his mother still ironed those. His business shirts are better quality than that now and they need ironing. P...who does the cleaning does it if Middle Cat cannot and, at the moment, Middle Cat is still in hospital.

But then it comes to the serious stuff. I could not find the nail scissors and I do need to keep them short - especially right now. More serious still are they perhaps with my medication. My BP is high enough with all the stress so not having access to that could be disastrous. I finally find these things "out in the shed where you will have to sort all the stuff I dumped". Sigh...but at least I have found it.

Then my personal file disappeared and it was panic stations again. The information in that is absolutely vital...I found it "put away safely".

I cannot find the household phone book - for the numbers we need but not often. It means I have not been able to contact some people I need to talk to about this or that...and BIL gets annoyed because I have not done. "You should have all those things in your phone Cat!" 

No, I don't work like that. The bank has just sent me a new card. I have to go into the bank to activate because I cannot and will not clutter up my simple phone with something called an "app". I won't need it after the card is activated. That sort of thing is clutter to me but my BIL says they are "essential". 

I think we are coming from two entirely different directions...so why in the heck do I feel so fond of my BIL? He really does mean well and he has done an awful lot of work here. It is just that I cannot find things.

Hosting the COP30 conference

would not be top of my agenda of "things to do when in government" but the Premier of this state believes it is important enough to jet off to Azerbaijan and lobby to do just that.

My own view is that these "climate conferences" are almost entirely a waste of money. They make some people feel good and warm, cosy and fuzzy. They allow others to feel a sort of righteous indignation at the way the rest of the world is treating them. Still others feel guilty about their "privileges". 

The most recent independent report on the cost of "going green" suggests that it is going to cost a great deal more than the government wants us to believe. The report estimate runs to "half a trillion" dollars more than current estimate. You can at least double that before you get a real figure. This is for a country which issues a tiny amount of harmful emissions. It is also estimated it would take up about half the size of Tasmania - just for the solar portion. The cost is astronomic - and of course there is no nuclear energy in the formula because "that is too expensive" and "it takes too long to build". Really?

I really do care about the planet, about the way we treat it, about the next generations being able to live on it...but I am not sure that "going green" in the way the government is proposing is the answer. And, I will ask the question again, why aren't we planting more trees?

Required - Sign Here

19-Nov-2024

PT Contract - 11_11 East Parade, Kingswood.pdf 11 of 14

PT Contract - 11_11 East Parade, Kingswood.pdf Page 12 of 14.

PT Contract - 11_11 East Parade, Kingswood.pdf 12 of 14

PT Contract - 11_11 East Parade, Kingswood.pdf Page 13 of 14.

PT Contract - 11_11 East Parade, Kingswood.pdf 13 of 14

PT Contract - 11_11 East Parade, Kingswood.pdf Page 14 of 14.

PT Contract - 11_11 East Parade, Kingswood.pdf 14 of 14

Form 1 - 11, 11 East Parade Kingswood.pdf Page 1 of 107.

#

 

 

 

;

|  

|  

Copyright © 2024 Docusign Inc.

|  V2R

There are not enough apprentices

to service the building industry now or in the future. There are not enough apprentices for plumbing, the electrical trades and much more. Why?

When I was at school (yes, I know this sounds boring) we had a rather different system. The system divided kids up. At the end of primary school you went to either a "high" school or a "technical high" school. It was a bit like the "grammar" and "secondary modern" system in England.  If you happened to go to an "area" school you would be similarly divided into "PEB" (public examination board) or "Area" (school based). The "smart" kids went to high school or did PEB. The other kids did the more practical subjects. Even within high schools there were academic streams and you knew where you stood in the academic pecking order.  

All that changed when committees of people decided that this was the wrong way to treat delicate teenage minds and we needed just "high" schools and no technical schools at all. England went over to "comprehensive" schools at around the same time. Woodwork, metalwork, domestic science, dressmaking and the like faded away. You don't want students doing that because the idea is that everyone aims for university and, in this state, you hope that around eighty percent of them will get the necessary marks to get there.

Of course this means two things. The first is that those practical skills are no longer seen as valuable. They do not lead to university entrance. The second is that, in order to meet the target of so many more students going to university, the standard has to be much lower. It has worked. We no longer have students who know which end of a hammer to hold or how to measure up and calculate something. I read essays from students aiming for university who cannot actually write an essay at all. The best students are still very good of course. Some of them are outstanding but they are in the minority. 

I may be wrong but I do not believe university for so many is the answer. There are too many people I know who wish they had gone and discovered a trade at a technical college instead. They say it would have been "more useful". I listen to them talking about the way so many other things would not work without the people with the practical skills...and they are right.

Exams finished for year twelve (our final year) last Friday. The library will be deserted today. The worried faces will be gone - for a while. I hope they do well or, as the Senior Cat would put it, as well as they deserve to do. Some of them might have done even better if they had been given a chance to learn those practical skills. 

I have had enough of bullying

stories in the media and the same old failure to ask the question nobody seems to want to ask. Is bullying behaviour now really worse than it was when you were a child and, if so, why?

Bullying gets a lot more attention now. We are told about suicides which allegedly and actually occur because of bullying. Once they were hidden. 

For a short time I was a student at a big city high school. It was a single sex school. There was a suicide while I was there. We were not even told about it. The student was there at the end of one term and not there at the beginning of another. I remember some rumours about what might have happened among the girls but she had been in another class and considered "a bit odd".  It was only several years later, when talking to the deputy headmistress, my own suspicions were confirmed. I had left school by then.

"We were advised not to say anything," she told me, "But I think some of you knew."

Yes, I knew - or guessed anyway. 

Was bullying the cause though? Was is it bullying or something else? I remember that girl as distinctly strange. There must have been other signs as well. Perhaps coming from a family where both my parents were teachers I was more aware of the way teachers handled students? I don't know. 

I think we need to ask why there seems to be an increase in bullying behaviour. Is it really just the increased availability and use of social media? I genuinely doubt that. 

I was a mere kitten a very long time ago now but I remember my mother's constant, "What do you say?" to all of us. So much so that saying "thank you" became a habit. Other children were told the same thing. We were considered "polite". We remembered to say it even if our mothers were not there. Word might get back if we did not remember our manners. We were also told, "That was not kind" when we teased or pushed or snatched something back from another child. If we fought we were told it was wrong and we were punished. There were no lessons about differences between us. Nobody told us about racism or sexism or any sort of individualism. 

Now it seems to be nursery, pre-school, kindergarten, day care or somewhere else that children are being taught to say "thank you" because both parents go to work. On top of that children are being taught to see differences in lessons about "inclusion". Those lessons go on throughout the early years of school and even into the later years. It seems to me that differences are being emphasised in the name of "inclusion". 

Perhaps I am wrong but the idea that social media alone is responsible for the "explosion" of bullying seems too convenient to me. Do we need to start thinking about what we are teaching children - from the start?

 

Moving house is

apparently as stressful as divorce. I have never been in a position where divorce is even possible but the stress of moving house is getting to me. 

This is so even with the wonderful help from my brother, my SIL and my amazing BIL. My BIL may drive me crazy but things are getting done...even most of the timber has disappeared.

Then yesterday we had T...and J... to help as well. S.... had been there for each of the previous four days. Last night she let me know that someone her partner knows will take the two recliner chairs nobody used. They were recovered some years ago and look like new. The same people will take the small round kitchen table and chairs. I will take the dining table with me. It has an extension so collapses to about the same size. All this is good.

I have come across things that are interesting if not important. There is a photograph of Middle Cat in school uniform. She must be about ten I suppose. There is a school report booklet for the Black Cat. I glanced at it and sighed...she was causing problems even then.

I found a photograph of my uncle on his wedding day. Both G...and his M.... are long gone. I found all the photographs taken at the last "C" group reunion - this was Mum's teachers' college group which met each year. They are all gone too.

I think I will be even happier when the sorting is complete. I won't come across more unexpected reminders of the past. 

 

Donating to political campaigns

is under review here in Downunder. It is another suite of "reforms" the present government is trying to pass which sound good but may have unintended - or perhaps intended - consequences.

At the present time the proposals have conditional support from the Opposition. Even with that conditional support I am wondering how well the proposals will work and whether they will really be as "fair" as the government claims. 

Yes, the proposals may benefit the major parties in that donations will still flow to them but will they benefit smaller parties or independent candidates? At the last election the Greens did very well with donations. A lot of people saw them (and still see them) as the friendly tree hugging and environmentally concerned party. A closer look at their policies suggests their other ideas are so far left they would be impossible to implement.

There were also a group of "independents" who have been labelled "teal" independents - because of the colours they wore. They were largely supported by one particularly wealthy businessman. He put a lot of money into the last election and did it very effectively. All this was said to be a good thing at the time.

So now we could have the situation where the "independents" and the very small parties could no longer afford to run candidates or, at most, just one or two. Would that be democratic? 

The other issue is that the union movement may have a great deal more spending power. Unions do not have to be concerned about being partisan. They on Labor's side. They may have limits on their donations but they will still be able to advertise independently. They already do this and they will simply do more of it. Business on the other hand will be much more cautious about appearing partisan, especially if they have government contracts.

It is all something that needs to be reviewed a little more carefully - if we are going to retain something approaching democracy. 

The Ambassador has to go

and go quickly.

I had a rather strange idea concerning Ambassadors. No it was not that they are "honest men sent abroad to lie for their countries" as Sir Henry Wotton is alleged to have told King James. The king was not amused at the joke - perhaps because there was a grain or more of truth in it,

But Ambassadors are supposed to be diplomats. They are are supposed to be able to make conversation with anyone, communicate well, negotiate with governments and other high powered people. 

Our current man in Washington is not a diplomat. His sometimes boorish behaviour when he was Prime Minister should have been a warning he was not suited to any diplomatic post, especially one requiring a high level of delicate negotiations regarding defence and trade. 

Some people thought he might have been sent off to China. He had spent some time there in the past. He claims to speak Mandarin...well he does speak some Mandarin but he is apparently not as fluent as we were led to believe. (My neighbour should know. He is Taiwanese but is also officially recognised as an interpreter in Mandarin.) It might have worked - but I doubt it.

In politics he behaved very badly towards one of his colleagues in order to become Prime Minister. He then lost the role to our only female Prime Minister. He took that badly and constantly undermined her behind the scenes before retaking the position only to lose the next election.  He resigned and was eventually rewarded with the post in Washington. There he continues to be a problem.

It does not matter what you think of the past, present or future President of the country to which you are appointed you do not say the sort of things our man in Washington has said. I know young children (who can be devastatingly honest) who could be more diplomatic. 

It is time for this man to "retire". Perhaps the government is leaving him there for now because there is an election coming up next year. If they lose then it will be the responsibility of the incoming government to appoint someone...more diplomatic perhaps?  

It is time to stop the "Welcome to country"

and return to a simple greeting at the beginning of meetings and other events. We most certainly do not need it on aircraft or any other form of public transport. It is not needed before football matches or any form of public event. We do not need it at the meetings of clubs or at council meetings. 

We do not need "acknowledgments" on newsletters or in the official documents from any part of government. Private individuals who insist on adding something to their own documents need to cease now.

There is nothing "traditional" about a "welcome to country". The negotiations between tribal groups when crossing one another's territory were for another purpose altogether. How those negotiations were conducted varied greatly.  Present day claims about "tradition" are convenient nonsense.

People are being paid to conduct "welcome to country" ceremonies, indeed demanding that they be allowed to do them before an event can take place. It has become financially convenient to insist that a surf life saving club should pay someone for the use of a beach that has been a public space in the past. 

We also have "sites of cultural significance" springing up all over the place. Work has been halted or disbanded altogether because someone has claimed it disturbs something. There are demands for "compensation" and more.

My friend M... spoke to me yesterday. He had been approached to do a welcome at an event. He refused. I have no doubt he did it politely but he has no time for such things. Nobody looking at him could doubt he is anything other than "aboriginal" or "indigenous". He knows a good deal about his ancestral culture and traditions but he does not believe they should be acknowledged or "celebrated" in any way which involves a financial advantage. "Do they pay you to wear a kilt and perform a sword dance Cat? Of course they don't so they should not be paying any of our mob either."

Food for thought.  

The government has now admitted

that it will not be possible to introduce "age verification" measures for some but not all. They are still pushing ahead with attempts to bring in a social media ban for everyone under the age of sixteen but the wider agenda, surveillance of everyone, is now becoming evident.

Years ago now there was an attempt to introduce a nationwide "identity card". It failed. It failed rightly because it went too far. We already have "Medicare" cards and they do the same sort of job. We also have an electoral system which requires people to be on the electoral roll. The few people who are not are  either non-citizens, of criminal intent or perhaps illiterate. The problem is not so large that those groups cannot be dealt with in ways other than a national identity card.

I have said nothing on social media which is likely to land me in prison. I have said nothing which is likely to make me subject to defamation. I have criticised of course, particularly with respect to some of our politicians but I have never said anything which is remotely like what has on occasion been said to me outside social media. 

It is very likely this is also true of the vast majority of people, including under sixteen year old young people. We are using a sledgehammer to try and eradicate a problem which is not going to go away. 

I would be less concerned by the potential impact of the legislation if we did not have the "other" bill in front of parliament as well. This morning it seems that one of the more respected constitutional law professors in this country is expressing concern. Professor Twomey is suggesting that bringing in "misinformation/disinformation" laws and doing it ineffectively will result in "large scale censorship".  I would go a step further and say the proposed law would not need to do it "ineffectively". It will simply do it. What we see, hear and say will be censored. It will be censored because someone will always have an opportunity to say, "This is wrong. Remove it." 

I see this legislation as dangerous and unworkable. It could actually lead to an "underground" of misinformation and disinformation but without the healthy debate which marks a more democratic society. 

Put both bills together and the question is going to be, "How do we teach young people to read the information they are given in ways which encourage them to think about it critically and question what they are reading?" If they cannot do that then we will also severely reduce their capacity to think creatively. That does not bode well for our future.  

Blame my brain?

My brain is not working too well right now. Yes, I am under some stress. 

My BIL has just sent through a very long list of things which need to be done before we hand the house over for sale...and I still have nowhere to go. Even with somewhere to go it would be stressful but...  

S... is an engineer by profession. Life for him is about attention to detail, accurate measurements, spread sheets and flow charts. He is happiest when dealing with these things. He admits to having "no imagination", has not read anything other than a textbook except when compelled to do so at school and does not understand creative activities.  He is also loyal towards and protective of my sister. Because he wants what is best for her he has also been willing to put in many hours sorting out "the shed" aka as the Senior Cat's "workshop". I am genuinely grateful for that. 

He has also overseen the cleaning of the white tiled roof. Someone he knew came in and did it over the weekend. K...worked steadily and efficiently and it cost us about a tenth of the price of a commercial firm. All I needed to do was add in the sandwiches and the bottles of fizzy stuff. 

My cousin T... and his partner came yesterday and took away yet more books. We also had cake because we had not been able to properly celebrate T...'s birthday. (Middle Cat is still in hospital but I am a little less worried than I was as at least a range of issues has now been ruled out.)

But, I need sleep. I need lots of sleep. I thought of all this as I handed over the Korean language copy of Nicola Morgan's book, "Blame my brain". I gave it to a Korean girl I know. She lives across the road from this house. This morning I saw her briefly and she told me the book is, "Really interesting. It is properly interesting, not just school interesting. I like it."

This is good. Perhaps it will be easier to make decisions about what to keep and what to throw out if I keep reminding myself of the pleasure that book is giving someone. 

Losing a child before you die

is an appalling thing for any parent to go through. I watched C... go through it with the Whirlwind. I miss her every day but it is much worse for him. He is not the same person now. His cousin, with whom he now shares a house in the nation's capital, tells me C... is very quiet. He goes to work and is still doing an excellent job there but he rarely socialises. "It's a quiet cup of coffee with someone sort of socialising," his cousin told me. C... was never one for parties.

And yesterday other friends lost their daughter to motor neurone disease.  It is less than two years since she was diagnosed. It moved rapidly and viciously. Yesterday R... took her own life under this state's assisted dying laws. She had reached the point where each breath was an effort and she felt she could not carry on.

In making that decision I am sure R... made it with her family in mind as well. It has been a very, very difficult journey for them all. 

It is also going to be hard on the theatre community here. R... was heavily involved for many years. Even after her diagnosis she kept working as long as possible, perhaps even longer than she really should have but she had things she still wanted to do.

 Her father has a strong religious faith. Her mother has none. They have managed to live with this state of affairs for many years. I wonder what will happen now. Will R..'s death change that? I doubt it but it is another issue for them to face.

On Friday evening someone was stabbed to death on the notorious party strip in our CBD. He was a young man. His father is a policeman. How does his father go on doing his job? I wonder about these things and wish I could help such people but know I cannot. I do not understand.

Yesterday someone came to clean the white tile roof of this house. It is one of the many things that need to be done before the house is sold. I gave him sandwiches for his lunch and he told me they were like his mother used to make. (No, nothing fancy just plain old cheese for one and egg for the other.) He is only about thirty but no longer has a mother. He handed his plate back and then he said shyly, "I miss her doing that." 

Yes, we miss our parents when they go. We can miss them desperately but how much harder is it for a parent when they lose a child?  

Being bullied at school

is something most of us have experienced I suppose. Perhaps most people, if honest, would say they did some bullying as well.

I did not bully anyone that I am aware of. The simple reason for that was that I was, for the most part, "the teacher's kid".  I would not have dared to consciously bully anyone. If I had done so and word had reached either of my parents I would have been severely punished, more severely than other children. 

Other children knew that of course and many took advantage of it. If I said anything about my hair ribbons being ripped out or my plaits being dipped in ink (they could be back then) or being told to hand over my piece of fruit at lunchtime I was not supported. I was simply told to "stop telling tales" or "I am sure nobody would do that" or "you must have done something to deserve it". There was no sympathy. I was told to "toughen up" and told not to be a "crybaby". 

The examples I have given were often the least of my worries but I do not think my parents thought the problems were serious. They most certainly were not serious enough for them to intervene. Other children could nicely judge just how far they could go at any given time. I just retreated into books instead.

It was much the same for my brother. If he had been more interested in playing "footy" it might have been different. He read and made things.

We almost never had other children over to play or go to their places to play. I can remember the actual occasions on which this happened because they were so few.  My brother was trying to recall one recently and having trouble. We both remember having Sunday lunch at a nearby children's home when our parents needed to visit our mother's aunt. The aunt was in what I now know to be a violent marriage and we children were being shielded from that information. C...and her five children moved in with us after that. They stayed until the then "Housing Trust" found a house for them. It took some months. C.. was also a teacher but no more sympathetic than our parents when it came to bullying.

We coped of course. We had to cope. I have no doubt that there were children who were bullied far more badly than we were but we were bullied. We were also expected to handle it ourselves. If it had reached the level of serious violence the adults would have intervened. They intervened in school yard fist fights and stone throwing was a very serious offence which resulted in canings for the boys and ruler slaps for the girls.

I wonder if bullying is worse now or whether there is more awareness. Is the emphasis on it in schools a good thing? Is it easier to do it using social media? (I suspect it is.) And, this is a serious question, is it more serious now because children lack the negotiation skills we had to learn in order to play with each other?

I would be interested to know that.

Why not make parents more

responsible for their child's behaviour on social media?

I really do not see the proposed "social media ban" for those under the age of sixteen as working. It seems to be some sort of fantasy solution the government wants to use as the easy way out of a much more complex problem.  Teens will simply find a way around it. Sixteen year olds are going to ensure that their younger mates have access to the very sort of information this legislation is trying to prevent them from accessing.

The comments about "this is what parents want" and similar remarks raise questions about why parents have given their children access to social media if they now want it banned. It also raises questions about why they believe social media companies should be held responsible for the behaviour of young people who should be in the care and control of their parents. Social media companies are not there "in loco parentis" as the Latin goes. Similarly teachers should only be in that position when they are in contact with students. They need to be aware of it when they are preparing teaching materials but they are not there to "bring up the kids" outside school hours.

It seems to me we are too ready to try and pass what should be our responsibilities on to other people. The government seems to believe it is right to require social media platforms to be responsible for the behaviour of young people. Why? 

I see it as the responsibility of parents in the first instance. School can come in with behavioural expectations as well but the primary responsibility should be with the parents of each and every child.

Along with the proposed misinformation/disinformation bill currently before our federal parliament this bill is going to severely restrict the capacity of young people to act and interact in a world which is now highly dependent on such things. It is going to give the government of the day a much greater capacity to ensure that only the information they want young people to have is accessible to them. It is wide open to abuse.

So far we are the only country in the "free" world which is attempting to restrict access to social media. Yes, there are other countries which would like to do the same thing but they have held back for technical reasons as well as social reasons. Will they now try to get everyone to "verify" their age? The claim that such information will be safe and secure is nonsense - and they know it.  

Oh America!

Oh America, what have you done?

I tried very hard not to look at the news yesterday. I had a feeling that the election result in America was not going to be the one most Downunderites were hoping for. It wasn't.

It is selfish of us I know but the result there is not good news for us. It will almost certainly mean big changes to the way we do business. It will mean changes to the way we do business with not just America but with other countries as well.  It will mean changes in defence arrangements and foreign affairs as well. 

Perhaps we will wake up and realise how closely allied to America we are? I doubt it. 

Then there is the problem of having a Prime Minister who has said that the next President of the United States "scares the s... out of me". Yes, our current PM is a wimp. No, he will not stand up to the man who will once again be so powerful. Our Ambassador in Washington has made his feelings clear too. Will he survive? His departure would be no loss but who will replace him? 

It would help to have an election here now because, one way or another, it would tell America, "Yes, we have had an election too and this is the way we want to go." 

We do not have those huge election rallies here. We don't have all the crowds being encouraged to shout. Our elections are not nearly as sedate as they once were but they are still reasonably quiet and, compared with some places, civilised affairs.  Still, things are changing and not for the better.

Several days ago there was a news item about a head of government department not displaying our national flag for  reasons I still do not understand. It was something to do with upsetting some group or other. Yes, this was about our national flag. I know it is not to everyone's liking but it is actually a very good representation of who and what we are. There are also some very strict rules and regulations about how and when it should be displayed. I happen to believe those things are important. I believe it is important because the flag is a reflection of us, of our past and of our future.  We need to stand around it and look in all directions. We don't need to change because not everyone is happy only if there is good reason to change. If someone is not looking our way we need to tap them on the shoulder and say, "Hello. We are open to friendship and business. Are you?" 

I want the answer to be "yes" - but we might need to work harder at it. 

Fee free TAFE?

It is very clear we now have an election coming up in Downunder. It must be held by late September 2025.In reality it will probably be held in around May - after the present government has fudged the budget figures in its favour.

Like everything else a government does policies are made with the idea of clinging to power. Those policies may not be the best thing for the economy but their popularity is what will count.

It is most definitely with that in mind that the government is now saying there will be 100,000 extra places at TAFE and they will be "fee free".  This will not happen and it most certainly will not be free but the government can say it is the case.

It will not happen because the fine print suggests that only some courses will be free - those where there is a high demand for workers. These will be in the childcare and aged care sectors and the building trade. 

I do not know enough about the building courses to comment on their value but some builders have been complaining about what is taught. It seems they are facing the same sort of problem as employers in other areas. 

Childcare and aged care courses are often described as "mickey mouse" or "very low value".  I have seen the course outlines and have to agree. They teach very little. It would seem they are there more to try and show that someone has "done a course". These courses and courses like "food service" courses have been used over and over again to try and get work shy people into work. These are the courses which are often never quite completed so that the certificate is never acquired even at Level 1. Going on to Level 2 or Level 3 is not something they even want to contemplate. If you fail to complete the course and remain unemployed you never had to repay the fees. 

The fees are not as high as university fees and, so far, there has been no apparent pressure to "pass" a failing student in the way there often is at university level. It is unlikely this will ever happen.

But should those courses really be "fee free"? If they are then will some courses at TAFE be fee free and others not? Will the government really pay for courses in fashion, floristry, photography and the like? Will they pay for courses in recreation and sport? I suspect there will be limits imposed. There will need to be. 

If I lived close to a TAFE college and there was a course of interest to me would I be permitted to do it fee free even if I had no intention of working in that field? No, of course not. Restrictions will have to be imposed.

And what of the plan to cut other student debt by 20%. The government really has not thought that one through. I paid to go to university and so did many other people of my generation. I paid even more as an "oversea" student in another country. My nephews and their parents paid for their courses up front rather than have a debt burden later. It called for careful economising for years. There is no suggestion that they will be reimbursed now but students who chose to accumulate a debt will now have their debt cut by 20%. Is that really "fair". Those who paid up front were not wealthy and often worked harder to be sure of passing because they had already paid for it.  That 20% cut is now going to be spread out over taxpayers instead. 

It seems the government has not really thought this through - or at least past the next election.  

"Not enough time" to read

to your children? Do you think your child's teacher should be doing this instead?

The Premier of this state has been making much of reducing the dependence of children on screens for entertainment. The primary focus is still on "sport" as the most desirable alternative form of "entertainment" for children. "Reading" is, supposedly, second. This does not necessarily mean "just books" but also newspapers, magazines, comics and the like.

I have been thinking about this and there is a word which comes to mind - and that word is "control".

Playing sport in childhood is all too often controlled not by the children themselves but the adults in their lives. My generation played "cricket" and "footy" out in the suburban streets without the supervision of adults. This was in addition to the wild games where imagination took over and they hunted "cowboys and Indians" or "space men" or something else. These games were not played in teams under adult supervision with an emphasis either on "everyone" participating or the team "winning".  We did not go to "footy practice" or "tennis lessons" unless our parents were wealthy and we were keen to learn.  Now it is expected that children will do this so that they are "safe" and "supervised".  Perhaps it is understandable but is it a good thing?

There seems to be a similar issue with reading. Parents who are "time poor" are finding it difficult to read to younger children (and even older children) at night. Getting children into the "library habit" with regular trips to the library is also a problem. Once there I also believe there is another problem. 

Elsewhere in this blog I have mentioned how a young girl once looked up at me in the library and said, "I'm sick of AIDS and death and divorce. I just want a good adventure story."  The issues of AIDS and death and divorce have now been taken over by stories about "blended" families, same sex parents, same sex relations, "transitioning", refugees and drugs. These are the topics of many "serious" books being written and published for children here. It is what I have found on the library shelves but is it what children really want to read about? 

It seems to me children are "captive" readers. Unlike adults they only have access to what adults choose for them to read. There may be no way around this but it does mean that adults have more control over what children read than what adults read. 

There are a good many books on the library shelves that I have no desire to read. I do not have to read them because nobody is telling me I "must" or that "this is what is available because we think it is what you need to be reading about". I can still find the equivalent of a "good adventure story" if I want to read one.  The options for children are more limited and their reading time is also more limited as adults control more of a child's "leisure" time. It is possible that some children have very limited leisure time. Why would they want to spend it reading only about social issues instead of sometimes escaping into a fantasy world?  

If we want children to read and imagine and escape from climate change, war, refugees, racism and more then surely we need to give them well written "adventure" and more? Perhaps I am wrong but is it time to say "reading should be fun sometimes"? 

Farmers are not accountants

and why the government seems to think it is acceptable to add yet another layer of red tape to their office work is beyond me. 

It seems they are now expected to add a great deal more form filling to their load because of the government's "zero emissions target". I can hear you asking, "But isn't zero emissions what we should be aiming for?"

To put it bluntly it is not something which is possible in the farming sector. If (and it is a very big "if") we are to reach zero emissions it will not be done by placing additional burdens on farmers.  Our friends across the pond in New Zealand realised that when they discovered that a "burp" tax placed on methane emissions from cows simply would not work - unless they killed all the cows.  Yes, it is that ridiculous. 

I am old enough to remember when farmers actually farmed and when the job involved hard physical labour all day long and into the night as well. We may have been "the teacher's kids" but we were well aware of the life of the farmers around us. They waited, still wait, for the annual cheque for the wheat or the wool or the monthly milk cheque from the "factory" down the road from us. Their income is not regular. A good harvest depends as much on the weather as it does on their skills as a farmer. They can look at the sky and know whether it will rain or not rain but they cannot make it rain - or stop it from raining at the wrong time. They do the best they can to control diseases in crops and illness among their animals. Putting down an injured animal is as traumatic for them as anyone else. 

Add to that the ever increasing rules and regulations about what can and cannot be farmed and where it can and cannot be farmed it is a wonder anyone actually wants to be a farmer.  I am very glad I am not a farmer - or married to one. 

When I was a mere kitten some farmers would keep all their bills and receipts in tins or shoe boxes. They had bank books - and an overdraft at the bank. At tax time they would take these things to the local accountant and the accountant would deal with these things - once a year. It was perhaps wildly inefficient but not impossible. Now farmers are expected to have computers and keep everything up to date. Cows are fed and milked according to computer programs which register the amount a cow is fed and how much milk it gives on a daily basis. A computer program tells farmers how much fertiliser to use and much more. Deviate from these things and "regulations" come into play.

Farmers feed us. Farmers are the people who make it possible for the rest of us to go into a supermarket or to a market and buy food. They need support, not increased regulations which add to their work.  

Exams start tomorrow for

 the final year of secondary school in this state.The first one is a mathematics paper.  I don't envy these students.

The library has been very quiet recently. This is despite the fact it is filled with students. Heads are down. The mathematicians are scribbling arcane notes, frowning, sighing and nudging a neighbour who is working on the same thing.

If I need to go into the library I try to creep in very quietly. I look nervously around. Is there a student I know. Are they going to want to talk to me about a problem.

I cannot help with the maths. It is too long ago. I only did the old "Leaving" level maths. It was all I needed...and I loathed maths as a subject. It took all my skill to get through the compulsory statistics course at university...and I could not do that now. Things have changed. I can do the occasional statistical test - but only when I am questioning the validity of something. Anything more than that and I would need to go to an expert.

These students are using signs and symbols I am not familiar with at all. I leave them to that. 

But English or history, psychology, legal studies, their research project? I am fair game there...and so are the library staff and anyone else who happens to be around. Yes, we help if we can. We will do anything to try and reduce the stress.  

But really is it as bad now as it was for us? These exams represent just thirty percent of the available marks for the year. The rest is their course work. Our exams were one hundred percent on the day - pass or fail. Here there are students who already have enough marks. They know they have already passed the subject in question. 

"But Cat I need to do more because I want to get into...." The student saying this will name a tertiary course where the competition to enter is fierce. Well, it was fierce in our day too - just less obvious.

On Friday I prowled cautiously in to the library and passed over the remaining chocolate frogs from the night before. I had added another packet. I handed them over to one of the library staff and she went quietly around putting a frog next to each student. Another staff member and I watched as frowns turned to smiles. Chocolate frogs do help at exam time.

Is "racism" just one

way or does it flow in both directions?

One of our Senators, a renegade one, has just been successfully taken to court for telling another one to p... off back to Pakistan. It was not polite but was it actually "racist"? 

I have to say here that I have no time for this particular Senator. She now leads the "One Nation" party. Her debut speech in the Senate caused national headlines, perhaps international headlines. It was also accused of being "racist" when she argued that she had as much right to live in this country as anyone else, that it was her country too.  She strongly opposes things like "Welcome to Country" as well.

Is it these things which made her "tweet" appear "racist"? The other Senator found it "offensive" to be told, "If you don't like it here then p... off back to Pakistan".  As I have just said it was not polite but was it actually "racist"? It might be that it could be argued both ways.

We are often told that we are a "racist" society but the research suggests this is not the case. We have a "Race Discrimination" Commissioner in our "Human Rights" body. Any case of discrimination which makes it that far gets a lot of publicity... but are there really that many cases? The current Commissioner is not so overloaded with work that there are demands for a second or third person to do the job as well. If discrimination exists, and it must sometimes, then it is being dealt with at a much more local level. 

We were told that rejecting the proposed Voice to Parliament would show we are racist. We rejected it but did it make us racist? It could be argued the other way. People did not want to do something that might cause some people to feel discriminated against. I voted against it after talking to indigenous people I know and who told me they were voting against it. 

I sometimes hear someone complaining that our society allows certain things they find offensive because they are not part of their imported culture. When I do I wonder why they came here if things were so good in the country they came from. Of course they were not. Life is seen as "better" here. Does that make me racist? I don't tell them to "go back" but there is a tiny handful I feel are trouble makers. 

Yes, it is that tiny handful. It is the l.8% of university students who complain about racism or the one employee in one hundred thousand who complains about racism when they do not get promotion who cause us to be labelled "racist". If we went to India, Japan or Korea, to Zimbabwe or Tanzania would we feel the same way? Is racism really about which group is in charge? Is it about something which is different and makes us feel uncomfortable?

I suppose I just have to be thankful that my friends come in all shapes, sizes and colours and think differently. 

"Privacy" can be dangerous

although I doubt we recognise that or even agree it is the case.

Nevertheless a couple of things have happened recently which has made me wonder about our so-called "privacy". Let me ask you something.

Do you remember the old telephone books? Do you remember those big, fat books printed on the cheapest sort of newsprint where you could look up a name and find not just a number but an address? They would come in two parts - one for "business" and one for "residential".  Now the phone book barely exists. There was a thin apology for one thrown into the garden recently because I have retained the "land line". (I will keep that until I move because there are still a few very elderly people who occasionally need to contact me that way.)

Those phone books were useful, very useful. If they had a phone you could find out where someone lived. Yes, there were a few "silent" numbers but most people just accepted you would know where to find them.

If that did not work or you needed an address outside the area covered by the phone book then you could consult the electoral roll. In this country where inclusion on the electoral roll is compulsory it was possible to find out an address anywhere in the country provided the person was on the roll. There was more information there as well. It might not have been much but if you were looking for the right Mary Brown or John Smith then it was very useful. The electoral roll is no longer available for such everyday purposes. I went into the electoral office a couple of years ago to ask if they could confirm an address for me. I had the address there and simply wanted to know if it was correct. The office person refused to help because of "privacy" even when I gave a full name. 

Yesterday someone called in to pick up some items being given to their charity. We chatted for a moment and she told me how she had just come back from taking a neighbour to check on her sister-in-law. There had been no answer on the phone to the daily call that morning.  Even though they knew the name of a neighbour it was not possible to call them because there was no means of looking up a number to do so. The alternative of calling the police to check seemed rather drastic but would have been justified as an ambulance had to be called.

We are constantly being told to keep things "private" or that our "privacy is valued" by someone asking for our personal information. We are told the information we indulge will not be "shared". All this seems increasingly unlikely to me. Mailing lists are sold to other people, of course they are! I had a call yesterday from someone who addressed me by name but I had never heard from them before. I had never done business with the company in question and will not do business in the future. Asked how they had got my name the person at the other end said, "Well, you are on our books." No, I could not have been. I have never owned a car.

It seems to me we are isolating ourselves more and more from family and friends because we do not have ready access to numbers when we need them. This happens even when government and business can access us while claiming "privacy" is being "respected". I would prefer to be able to be concerned about the well being of an old woman who was feeling too ill to answer the phone.