Thanks to Emma Darwin I came across

something called "Goodhart's Law" yesterday. It is something I had not heard of before but Emma found it interesting and it left me pondering it too.

Put simply it is stated as "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." One of the examples given by the internet when I looked it up was how the Soviets once measured the output of a nail factory by the total weight of the nails produced. The factory then produced a smaller number of very heavy and unusable nails to meet the required quota. As this was not working those in charge switched the goal to the number of nails produced. This resulted in factories making millions of tiny and equally useless nails. 

It is an easy to understand example that makes sense to me. It is the way humans will work if they can. I suspect most of us are naturally lazy unless we see some benefit for ourselves.

But Goodhart's Law also works in other ways. We probably would not even see it as being relevant to things like housing or discrimination measures but it might be.

Buying a second house (or more) and then renting it out has been a means of bringing in money for centuries, for as long as people have had houses. Not everyone can afford to do it but those that do are providing a service for those who need a roof over their heads. Yes, I know there are "greedy" landlords out there. I know there are landlords who are renting out sub-standard accommodation for inflated prices. We hear about them all the time. 

There are also landlords, and I suspect they are the majority, who keep the property in good repair and charge a fair rent. They do it because it makes economic sense to do it. This is the way they do not make a loss and may make a small profit. There are people who do it because they see it as the way they will not need to be dependent on a government pension. It makes sense that they should not be penalised for doing this. Recent government changes will penalise them. It might not be to the same degree that future landlords would be penalised but there is still a penalty there. It is going to reduce the number of dwellings available to rent - in a serious housing shortage.

It also makes sense to try and ensure that there are measures in place to ensure that other people will be able to own their own homes if they wish to do so. It makes sense not to put obstacles in the way of home ownership if this is what people want. 

There are also measures which should not be undertaken in order to achieve these goals. It is those measures which the present government is now pursuing. They sound good. Of course they sound good but the reality is that they are not good. 

That person with their "own new build home" on a five percent deposit actually owes more than they will ever be able to pay back. The government effectively owns the home and has restricted their ability to move anywhere else because of the way the scheme is set up.  In an age where many people need to be flexible and change employers in order to keep working this presents problems. There will be other issues later too.  I know of one person who had to continue renting because he knows he could be transferred interstate at any time. The scheme does not help him at all. There are many more people like him. 

In another area there is the law which was intended to ensure there was no sexual discrimination. It was changed to give "rights" to a tiny group of individuals and has now ended up giving rights to nobody at all. 

There are laws around agriculture which were brought in to increase yields and now harm the environment but are still in place. There is the environmental damage done so we can "save the planet from global warming".

It all sounds good but perhaps we should just have a "law of unintended consequences"?  

 

 

 

 

"Too hard to buy a house"

comes the cry. "Housing is too expensive" and "Young people can't get a foot on the ladder of the housing market these days" and... well, you know how it goes.

My parents married in 1947. Yes, not long after WWII. There was a severe shortage of housing, of building materials for houses and the land on which to build houses. There were many people out of work too. 

The Senior Cat was a teacher in a small country town (village to those of you in Upover).  There was no spare housing at all. He had been boarding with a family, sharing a bedroom with another teacher from the high school. It was not an ideal situation and marrying Mum meant that finding something else was not only urgent it was absolutely essential. 

One of the local farmers had a galvanised iron shed on top of a small hill just outside what were then the boundaries of the town. It was unlined. The floor was just packed dirt. Some old linoleum was found, a spare wood burning stove was found. Other odds and ends were found. The windmill was connected to the water supply and a "long drop dunny" was dug for use. My parents moved in. They lived in it for the next two years. They sat on fruit boxes and ate at a collapsible card table. When it had been cleared at night lessons were prepared under the light of a kerosene lamp. 

I came along at the end of the first of those years and it was my home for the first year of my life. I have small memories of the place from occasional visits to it when I was around two years of age. 

My parents considered themselves incredibly fortunate because, as teachers, they were eligible for one of the new "Housing Trust" places being built in the township proper. These were "fibro-asbestos" homes that the government was putting up as quickly as they could for essential workers. Some of those homes are still occupied today. They are very basic structures. They are small. They had no air conditioning. In winter you heated the house by opening the oven door of the wood burning stove and allowing the hot air from the oven to escape into the room. 

Three years later the Senior Cat was promoted and transferred to a larger school in the city. For the next few years we lived in a house my paternal grandfather had found. We shared it with one of my mother's aunts and her five children. 

From there, as the Senior Cat was promoted from one place to another, we lived in housing belonging to the government. My parents had no choice. It was all there was. It was a roof over their heads and they considered themselves fortunate to have it. The rent they paid was the same as anyone else would have paid for similar accommodation in the city. 

It was not until the Senior Cat was finally given a city appointment we stopped living in departmental housing. (My parents then moved into my mother's old family home as her mother had just died.) It was only then they could even think about buying their own home. That was not easy but, late in their working lives, they managed it. They had actually ceased working when they finally moved into a home they could really call their own.

Now though it seems that newly weds want their own home, or they are told they want their own home. They are told this is what their parents and grandparents had and they have a "right" to it as well. The present government is telling them this even while telling them there is a severe housing shortage. They are being told they "need" a range of white goods and the garden needs to be landscaped right up to the patio. 

My parents generation had none of this. Middle Cat and Brother Cat took thirty years to pay off the mortgage and did the improvements themselves as they could afford to do it. I saved every cent I could and found a place for my sleeping mat less than two years ago. It does not have many of the things considered "essential" but it has all I need - and I know I am lucky to have it.

Getting a foot on the housing ladder is difficult. It was always difficult. I suspect part of the problem now is what people are being told they "need" and trying to find somewhere with what they actually need. There's a difference.  

There is a second transgender case

appeal being heard in the Supreme Court next week. This time it involves someone being required to pay $95,000 to two transgender people who identify as female being "vilified" by another person who is female. Apparently she raised concerns about them playing sport on a women's football team.

The definition of "vilification" is generally considered to be something like speaking or writing very derogatory or abusive or untrue words about someone and thereby ruining their reputation and making other people think negatively about them. The court seems to have taken it a step further and said simply stating a fact can cause vilification if the person of whom the statement is made takes exception to it. 

There has been plenty said about transgender people participating in sport. I have not yet found any articles about transgender people who identify as male participating in men's events. They may exist and I would be interested if anyone can direct me to stories which show they have successfully done this. 

There are of course multiple stories about transgender people who identify as female participating in women's events. There have also been concerns raised about "unfair advantage" and, even more seriously, potential harm caused by larger, stronger participants injuring smaller participants. These are issues which need to be addressed.  If the court does not allow the upcoming appeal then it will raise issues of concern about the safety of women in sport. What will happen if a much smaller woman is seriously injured by someone who is much larger and stronger and identifies as female?

My paternal great-grandmother was among those who obtained the right for women in this state to vote. She saw differences which a disadvantage and, like others, attempted to change that. Are transgender people really so disadvantaged?  Are they more badly treated than some people from a different racial background, people with a different religious or cultural background or a disability? What really matters here? 

The fine issued is, by any standard, excessive. If the court goes the same way as it did for Giggle v Tickle then there may be  further grounds for an appeal to the High Court.  All this may seem ridiculous and a waste of court time to those who say "what does it matter if a person identifies as male or female?"  It does matter however when the one percent of the population who identify as varying from the sex they are assigned at birth are attempting to claim more rights than those who have tried to obtain equal rights.

There is a "street library"

not far from here. I pass it quite often. I have stopped and looked less often but it has usually been to donate an extra book or two. I have twice borrowed and returned something that caught my eye. I tend to use the big local library instead.

The person who cares for the library was repairing it yesterday. He was not happy. I am not happy for him. He saw the incident. 

Two teenage boys had come along on their motorised e-scooters and deliberately knocked the little library of its base. Why? They apparently thought this was funny. They shouted abuse at the man who built it and maintains it. 

"I didn't say anything," he told me, "I wanted to. I felt like thrashing them. Why do they do it?"

I suspect the adrenalin kicks in. It's a "thrill" for a few minutes and then they need to look for the next thrill. They are "bored" and do not have enough resources to entertain themselves in other ways. They would never think to use the library for themselves.

It took the conversation to who does use the library. I know people who do use street libraries. They donate books they have already read and no longer want. They borrow books to read if they are going on holiday. Harassed mothers have been known to grab a picture book to keep a child quiet. Older children have found another book in a series their parents refuse to buy for them. Someone walking a dog has found something they want to read. An older person slowly going past will sit on the fence and look at something from their childhood or a romance they can't quite bring themselves to borrow from the library. The latest winner of a literary prize is there and someone takes it "to see if it really is any good".  I could go on.

And there are two homeless men who appear around the district occasionally. They borrow books, read them and return them to other street libraries. For them it is their library. They won't even enter the local libraries. I know them and they know me in the "recognise your face" sort of way. We acknowledge each other.

The repairs complete I helped the owner of the structure put the books back. I hope the two men who borrow from it find something new to read.   

"I think it's a cult"

There is a story in this morning's paper about a university student who, for a short time, succumbed to the "friendliness" of a cult like religious group. He was delivering a warning to other young people about the group. 

I have no doubt the same group will now try and trash his reputation. It is the way these groups work. 

I was reminded of my very first lecture at Law School. It had little to do with the law. We were informed about the standard of behaviour expected of all law students. This included such things as the boys opening the doors for the girls and everyone opening the doors for anyone who was going through them with a load of books in their arms. It included the "if you do not get it in on time then it won't get marked" warning. (There were a few exceptions to that but very few.) There were the library rules. Put books back on the trolleys not on the shelves. If they are put back in the wrong place nobody can find them. (I ignored that one with the blessing of the staff the day one of them caught me putting a book which had been wrongly shelved in the right place.) 

And then there was "The Warning". This was to ignore and not associate with anyone at "That Place" (just off campus) where the Scientologists lurked. They were offering "free psychological tests" that were of course nothing of the sort. 

I had arrived a couple of days before that lecture. I had been approached and given them short shrift. I was all too well aware of how dangerous they were. Mum's brother was ensnared by them for a short time. When he came to his senses and realised what they were they tried all sorts of ways to retain him. (He had been dead some years when we got a letter from somewhere in America from someone who was still in the group feeling "concerned" about him.) I made no secret of what I knew about the group and I do not think any of the law students were caught by them while I was there.

Other students were of course. They were often very vulnerable in other ways. They would be away from home for the first time in their lives and having someone offer "friendship" when you are homesick can seem wonderful. That would be enough.

I read this morning's piece and remembered all of that. I remembered being approached when the Scientologists were trying to get a foot hold in the city. The two girls who approached me seemed shocked I did not want a "free psychological test" or that I might be so much happier if I had one. I was fortunate enough to know enough about psychology to know such things did not legitimately exist and permanent happiness is a myth.  

It seems to me that this might be part of the problem with all the gender issues too. We keep being told that "happiness" is what we want. We are told it can be attained if only we do this or that or become this or that. I do not go along with the member of the other cult like group who once told me "God did not intend for us to be happy". That is nonsense. What I do believe is that "happiness" is not a constant "good" feeling. Our level of "happiness" is variable. It has to be if we are really to appreciate life.  

In the Giggle v Tickle case

 the court had to apply the law. This is how the courts work. The law can be absolutely ridiculous but it still has to be upheld by the court.

In effect this is what has happened here. They have found the Sex Discrimination Act provisions apply to those "identifying" rather than biological reality. The court has decided that this is the way the law reads and that is what they need to apply.

This may be reversed when the matter goes to the High Court but, until that happens, any man who identifies as a woman will have the right to enter female only spaces. Could a woman who identifies as male enter a male only space too? Yes, under this ruling it could happen. 

Transgender people are thought to be less than one percent of the population but the ruling has much wider implications. We already have men in women's prisons. They can be housed there even when they have perpetrated crimes, especially sexual crimes, against women. This ruling makes it even more likely this will happen. All that will be needed is for someone to "identify".

It means those who "identify" will also be able to enter shelters for women. That these shelters are intended to protect women from male abuse and violence will not cover the male who identifies as female.  Men who identify as women also have access to spaces where a woman should be able to quietly breast feed an infant. 

Whether you think all this is right or wrong is up to you but the present ruling could go even further. All the moves to see more women on boards and in other positions of authority are now potentially at risk. They could be taken by anyone who identifies as female. All the "diversity, equity and inclusion" work everywhere is now going to be subject to the demands of someone who identifies as something other than what most people see as biological reality.

I am not sure if the DEI issue has hit home yet. Most people who just see the Giggle v Tickle judgment as "wrong" will not have gone that far but there are some who have. It is why there needs to be an appeal and that appeal needs to happen quickly. How the High Court will decide is their affair but I suspect there are some members of parliament who are preparing for a means of reversing the legislative changes brought in by the Gillard government.  

 

A judgment in the Giggle v Tickle appeal

is due to be brought down today. It will be very, very interesting to see which way it goes.

For those of you who do not know what it is about I suggest you do a little searching on line for details but here is a very brief summary.

A woman called Sall Grover developed a site called "Giggle for Girls". It was for girls/women only.  Someone calling themselves Roxanne Tickle joined it and was then barred from it because they did not meet the site's definition of "girl". Tickle appealed the decision. The Human Rights Commission became involved and supported Tickle. A judgment supporting Tickle was made. Grover was hit with a list of demands and has appealed.  It is the judgment in that appeal which will be delivered today.

If she fails Grover has already made it clear she intends to go to the High Court. If she fails then women in this country will lose a great deal. If Tickle fails then it will be interesting to see if they appeal - and who supports them.

The case is being watched closely in other countries. The outcome is important. I know people who have strong views on both sides. Whichever way it goes there will be people who will not accept the judgment.

In this morning's paper there is something related to this. One of the council's in a neighbouring state has put aside a room for "chest feeding" and the terminology is, rightly, being questioned. It is for "lactating parents to feed or express milk" and there is a quote from one group about "the validation of trans-masculine and non-binary parents" and the usual "diversity, equity and inclusion" remarks. Apparently all those contacted in other councils failed or declined to comment.

Whatever we might think about any of these things I remain puzzled about "chest" feeding. Last time I looked everyone I know, whatever their gender,  had "breasts".  

A "strictly vegan" woman

can face extra difficulties in pregnancy. 

I was told this one day while she was explaining cholesterol readings to me.  I am not quite sure how or why it came into the conversation but it did. I have not forgotten this.

Is it true? I have not done enough research to know but I suspect there are issues which need to be addressed. 

I say this because I know a number of people who follow diets out of conviction rather than necessity. There are at least three who are fanatical about their diets. 

The one who claims to have "absolutely no animal products" in her diet is thin to the point of anorexia. She looks unwell. She is unwell. This woman has no stamina. She is frequently ill with "colds" or "the 'flu" and says she "doesn't know" how it is she gets these illnesses so often. 

There is another who has a long list of things she will not eat. She comes to see me occasionally and brings her own "organic" tea - from some concoction she makes up. I just boil the water but at least she does not expect the water to be filtered.

I have several friends who do not eat meat of any sort. That is much easier to handle but one won't eat any sort of dairy products "because they are bad for my cholesterol" and another is "allergic" to eggs. 

I once had a neighbour who really was allergic to eggs. My mother once cracked an egg open in front of this woman and a moment later she was gasping for breath and had to rush outside. It sounds ridiculous but the reaction was there and it made life very difficult for her. 

My only aunt is vegetarian by choice but what this really means is she does not eat meat. She will eat cheese, drink milk and put butter in the pan when she makes an omelette. She taught chemistry at a university and is well aware of her need to eat a balanced diet.

I simply try to eat a balanced diet. I don't eat much meat because I am simply not fond of it but I do not ask other people to abide by my choices.

And that brings me to a man called Chris Packham. It seems he has succeeded in having two advertisements taken down in the UK. The advertisements concerned dairy products and meat. They were part of a campaigning backing farmers. Mr Packham is some sort of media personality. He is also a vegan. He objected to the advertisements and had them pulled down by claiming they were misleading. Their statements about their "carbon footprint" were apparently misleading. 

Perhaps it is time to look at the environmental damage by almonds or soy? Perhaps it is also time to look at the environmental damage done by plastic and or clothing ourselves in acrylic. 

Perhaps the real damage is being done by people like Mr Packham. It is why I spent a short time yesterday visiting a young woman who has just lost a second child while following that "strictly vegan" diet. Her mother is worried for her and I am too.  

   

Our failure to vote for the Voice to Parliament

is apparently the reason the five year old niece of the Senator died. 

I was told this yesterday after watching the speech given by the Senator. She was in tears...and I was close to that too. 

I am also angry. I am angry because those who could do something about the situation are not doing anything. They are not going to do anything.

The media has reported the speech. I saw one report on the news service I watch last night. Oh yes, it showed the Senator in tears. That was about it. After that came the usual "we must do something" and then the same old solutions were trotted out. 

The Senator had said something entirely different. She told the Senate things had to change. She told them there could not be more of the same. The "solutions" are not working. They will not work.

The "Intervention" sequestered welfare payments so mothers could feed their children. Many of those involved welcomed that. They did not have to hand over their money to be spent on alcohol. They could not. The money was not there. The "alcohol free" zones were much harder to police but alcohol related incidents were noticeably reduced. Children were going to school more often.

We stopped that because sequestering welfare payments was seen as "undignified" and "racist". Is it undignified to have the ability to feed your children? As for "racist" then why is it racist to do this for one group and not another. There are others who also have their welfare payments dealt with in this way. It is sometimes done at their request to prevent the very same sort of problems indigenous women were facing. 

There is a town in a remote area I knew well when growing up. There are indigenous "camps" around it. Back then attempting to get the children to school was a major problem for the Education Department. Some came, some came sometimes, some came when the weather was bad. The girls were much more likely to attend than the boys. By the end of their primary years however it was rare to see them in school and truancy officers had no power to get them there.

"Oh, we will have to teach them in their native language!" came the cry, "That will solve the problem. They will engage. They will want to be there."

Of course it has done nothing of the sort. The curriculum could not be taught in the local language. The local language barely existed, There were just a few very elderly people who spoke nothing else. The next generation spoke a mix of that and English. The generation after that would have spoken almost nothing but English but there was the push to "revive their language" and teach them in it. Everyone was assured that doing this would solve the problem of getting them to school and keeping them there. That would lead to higher levels of achievement and employment.

It has done nothing of the sort of course. Why would it? The resources are not there. They were never there. They will not be there. Despite this those with the responsibility to handle the affairs of indigenous people persist with this as if it is the answer to the education of "our people".

It is one reason why the good Senator was struggling to speak yesterday. She knows how important education is. It is how she has got to where she is today. 

I watched her and listened to her yesterday. I felt, and still feel, angry. Nobody should have to stand up in our national parliament and say what she had to say. She knew that the proposed "Voice" would not work because it would just bring about more of the same. It is a "same" which does not work.

And when I support her...well then I am supposedly "racist". 

  

Ah, those Ministerial "expenses"!

The current kerfuffle over one of the Federal MPs claiming a hefty sum as "expenses" in order to attend the birthday party of a friend is interesting.

It is interesting for several reasons. The first is that the "meeting" she claimed to be claiming expenses for did not take place. A chat on the sidelines of a birthday party is not a serious sit down meeting. I know how those work. I have attended a great many of them for one reason or another. 

The second is that it was only when a journalist did some digging that it was paid back. Perhaps the journalist was digging because this was not the first time there had been a dodgy claim? 

The third is that the Prime Minister appears to believe this is nothing to worry about "because she has paid the money back". Really?

This is the same PM who is claiming millions in travel related expenses so "a few thousand" almost certainly seems insignificant to him. Perhaps I need to be more understanding.

It seems they do understand. They managed to oust a previous Speaker even after she repaid for that infamous helicopter ride. They managed to oust a Premier when he failed to declare a bottle of wine worth less than a $100. 

And the fact that another MP, this time the highest law officer in the land, also has expenses related issues which need to be addressed? Of course it is not a problem - unless the Opposition is responsible for such things and the media is not on your side.

I have eaten a working lunch with a Supreme Court judge. We very naughtily ate sandwiches and drank orange juice in a small garden space while he asked me questions. We each paid for our own sandwiches. 

I went to meet a then Prime Minister in his office at his request. They offered to send one of their cars to pick me up. I took a taxi and paid for it myself and was thanked for doing so because it did not need to appear on any expenses sheet.  I have done the same sort of thing for every Ministerial meeting I have ever attended.  It is the way I work. 

But, I suppose I am guilty of accepting a ride on one occasion. The Ministerial driver concerned lived about two hundred metres from me. The Minister I was meeting that day told me this. His driver would be coming from home with the car. He could pick me up on the way. I accepted. 

The driver actually proved to be someone I knew by sight. He greeted me with the words, "Not really out of the way at all. I just go down this street and not the next one." 

It was an excellent trip into the city and I admit it was tempting to accept a ride home as well. Those drivers are exceptionally well trained. I didn't. I caught the train home. It felt better that way.   

The "Women's Minister" has just said

the earlier children enter into childcare the better it is for their development. She claims she is quoting "research".

Yes, there is strong evidence to suggest children do develop essential cognitive, social and language skills more rapidly in childcare. This is generally seen as a "good" thing. It is a good thing to develop the skills which will allow the child to do well in school.

I have no issue with young children going to "day care", "nursery", "kindergarten" or whatever you care to call it. I do have an issue with the way the Minister apparently said "the earlier the better". 

I do have an issue with the sort of "care" some children are getting. Good childcare requires a very high child-adult ratio. It is not often the "good" staffing levels are met. It is simply too expensive to do it.

I also have an issue with sending children of "normal" intelligence into an environment like that when they are not even crawling. They are, like it or not, simply too young.

And I have an issue with the amount of time some children spend in "daycare". All children need to be able spend time at home. They need to be left to their own devices. They need to be "bored" sometimes so they develop initiative, imagination and creativity.

It was a minority of my generation which went to what is known as "kindergarten" in this state. If we did go (and I did) it was only for a couple of hours twice a week. There were activities like painting, other craft, story telling, singing and learning some physical skills. Computers, as we know them, did not exist. We learned about the importance of taking turns, saying please and thank you and how to count to ten if our mothers had not already taught us. We did not know about Eid or Divali or play computer "games" designed to teach us by endless reinforcement. 

The amount it is thought necessary for a child to know before starting school has increased so much there is little time left for the sort of independent imaginative play we did in the back garden. Does this really mean the child is better off in day care, nursery, kindergarten, pre-school or call it what you will? Does it mean weekends need to be filled with adult supervised activities?

Like most things I suspect we need a balance. Is it just possible that we need to allow children to be "bored" sometimes? Do we need to allow them time to be independent? Going into child care at six months, or even twelve months, of age may allow a parent to return to work. The parent can then maintain their mortgage repayments and develop their career but at what cost to the child?

 

    

Culture or "tradition" or something else?

 This (below) appeared on the feed on X this morning and, given the subject of yesterday's post, it is worth repeating here.

 Yes, that painting you paid so much for is not from a thousands of year old tradition belonging to "the oldest continuous traditional culture." It really is a 1971 style taught by a "white" man.

The claim about "culture" is also wrong. There is no single culture among indigenous people in this country. There is no one language. The country is vast. People travelled on foot. After more than a few days journey they would not have understood each other. 

There were no "welcomes" or "acknowledgments". There were exchanges between closer tribes with similar languages - designed to find out if there was a friendly relationship in the past.

There were no "smoking" ceremonies. The fire to produce it had entirely different functions.

When there are claims that "culture" and "tradition" and "language" need to be "preserved" we need to ask what is really being done. The reality is that indigenous life before white settlement was very, very harsh. It was brutal. It was violent. It was short. The stories they told have changed in the way that those Grimm or Perrault collected have changed to be suitable for retelling to children.

There is money behind all this. There are billions of dollars spent every year on attempting to preserve something which did not exist - and which we are told we need to feel guilty about. It does not mean there is no heartfelt connection between the environment and the person or that some remnants of language and culture should not be maintained. We cannot discard thousands of years of culture "just like that" but we have to know what it really is we are trying to keep - and it may not be what we think it is.    

Is it time for "culture" change

 or do we go on doing what we keep being told is "right" and even "respectful" of indigenous culture? 

I am re-posting below the long and very obviously heartfelt "tweet" by someone who is both "indigenous" and in a position where she has been trying to represent other indigenous people in our federal parliament. I know, from talking to the indigenous people I have met, that they share similar concerns.  

@JNampijinpa

I would love nothing more than to be wrong about Indigenous issues. I would love to wake up tomorrow and find out that actually it was ‘colonisation’ all along and the government funding is fixing everything now. I would love it if the violence, the alcohol, the neglect, and the squalor in town camps and remote communities was all made up. I would love to be wrong because if I was, there’s a chance my niece Kumanjayi Little Baby would still be alive today. Instead, I’m left feeling numb about what happened to this innocent little girl who has been taken from us so young. Many of us are reeling from what happened last week. And from what they’ve seen about conditions in town camps in and around Alice Springs. They are shocked by reporting that suggests calls to child protection agencies were not acted upon. They are appalled at the total failure of the government to make a dent in the disadvantage and dysfunction in these communities despite all the money you could want. And many, like me, are angry that the Labor Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Malarndirri McCarthy, has responded by saying “now is not the time” for politics. Well, Minister, I’ve been shouting from the rooftops about this for years; was that not the time either? For this government, for the bureaucrats, for the inner-city activists and academics, is it ever the time? They should be honest with themselves. Do they ever want to look these issues in the face? I don’t think they do. Because if they did, they would have to face the fact that the death of Kumanjayi Little Baby happened because too much of the Indigenous affairs system has become focused on process, ideology and symbolism instead of protecting children at risk. They are too scared of being called racist to admit that the unwillingness to challenge harmful behaviours in the name of “culture” means they let children live in dangerous, dysfunctional camps that would not be tolerated anywhere else in the country. They are too scared that someone might call them racist and bring up past wrongs, like the stolen generations, to remove children in dangerous homes and put them into care. They are too scared of risking their grant funding or next promotion in their public service jobs to openly acknowledge that high rates of Indigenous incarceration might have to do with high rates of violence and sexual assaults in Indigenous communities. So no, I do not accept that “now is not the time” because this is what the dysfunction in Aboriginal communities actually looks like and we cannot look away. We cannot keep treating Indigenous People as though different standards should apply. The separatist approach has not worked. It has not worked and it will not work. Put away the victimhood and racial grievance and stop being scared. Just fix the problems. Put violent offenders in jail, regardless of race. Put kids in danger into safe homes, regardless of race. Clean up the camps and enforce the same standards we do in public housing, regardless of race. This isn’t hard, provided governments can find the courage. I hope and pray that they do, for the memory of Kumanjayi Little Baby. Time for REAL solutions.  

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Senator for the Northern Territory
Shadow Minister for Small Business
Shadow Minister for Skills and Training

This is coming from a Senator who is indigenous.  Is it time to listen to what she has to say? Will those with vested financial interests be heard instead?  Will anything change? 

 

 

We teach children it is wrong

to lie so how is it that the Prime Minister can do it?

One of the much younger generation asked me this yesterday. Their father had read out a piece listing items the Prime Minister had either lied about or "backflipped" on. I found the list and it is extensive.

There is the very well known one about how power prices would fall by  $275 because of "renewable" energy. Rebates were put in place when it was obvious this was not going to happen but even with rebates the price of energy has risen well beyond that.  The plug on rebates was pulled out at the end of 2025 and prices are now rising still higher. 

  There was the promise to keep the previous government's stage three tax cuts exactly as planned with no changes. They have been changed and restructured  but only to the government's income stream advantage.  

They promised no changes to superannuation and then introduced a new tax on balances over $3 million.  

They promised "real" wages would grow and rise above pre-election levels.  That has not happened.  

They promised extra water under Murray-Darling Basin Plan and delivered 5% of what they promised. 

 The promised Makarrata Commission for truth-telling and treaty has been abandoned after the Voice referendum failed.  

They promised no changes to negative gearing but are now going ahead with changes that will do nothing for housing policy but will severely disadvantage a generation which did not have access to compulsory superannuation benefits.

They promised the long-term immigration plan was locked in. It was not. They are bringing in more migrants who have been shown in other parts of the world not to integrate.  They are being placed in areas the government is desperate to retain at the next election with their right to citizenship being fast tracked.

To move these people around they are trying to secure less than the mandated fuel supply but are telling us that being "given" an extra day's supply came about because of the Prime Minister's diplomacy. 

They backflipped on removing sexuality, gender identity and sexual variation questions from 2026 census but refused to add two questions which would have greatly assisted housing and health planning.  They tried to refuse to run a Royal Commission into the Bondi terror attack and rising antisemitism. It was only under immense pressure they announced one. •  At the same time they got the hate speech legislation through by splitting the bill to get it through Parliament.  They have removed the RMIT ABC election promise tracker amid scrutiny over these broken promises.  

They are just some of the things they promised and have not delivered. They did this and promised a new era of transparency and open government plus FOI reform so laws couldn’t be flouted. FOI refusal rates have nearly doubled to 23 per cent and full disclosures are lower than ever before.

Lying is part of the political game but these are lies the government has continued to repeat and will go on repeating. The financial mess the country is now is apparently the fault of the war in the Middle East. The Treasurer is making "savings" that are not savings at all. He is simply going to tell us that they will be spending less and providing less than they would like. He will take from those who have worked longer and hardest to give to a generation who believe they can have right now what their parents and grandparents spent a lifetime working for. It is the youngest generation which is more likely to vote for them.

The "ISIS" brides due to return today

"will face the full extent of the law" and "will be arrested" - well, some of them will. They will "all be subjected to monitoring" - perhaps.

I keep wondering about this. I suspect these "ISIS" brides, women who went off to join their husbands in the Islamic State fight which failed are not all the same. 

Some of them will have gone out of a belief that the proposed caliphate would come about. They would have seen themselves as the wives of the leaders. They would have been ready to assume roles which gave them control over other women. They would have believed they would eventually be leading lives where they controlled not just other Muslim women but all women. These women would be hard line radicals. I have no doubt that at least one of those returning to this country will be in that category. She will still be a believer in these things. Given the opportunity she would do it again and believe that doing it "differently" would mean success the next time.

Then there will be others who will still believe it was right to go. They won't see it as a failure but a setback. The conditions there may have been appalling but they will believe that this is necessary in order to get to heaven.

There will be others who believe varying shades of both these things.

And there will be women who went because they had no choice. They had married, often by family arrangement, the men they went to join. They were told that not to go would bring shame on their families and the families of the men who went. They will have been taken out of school at the earliest possible age. They are not well educated. All their lives they have lived under the control of their fathers, their brothers and their husbands. To a lesser extent they have also been controlled by their mothers and then their mothers-in-law. They will have submitted to sex whenever it was required of them. They will have had multiple children and be expected to bring them up in the same traditions. 

This group will go on believing all this is right because this is what they have always been told. Changing those beliefs will be impossible. They may appear to do so. They may try but those beliefs will always be there.

Monitoring all these women, their children and grandchildren will cost millions of dollars every year for many years to come. Those who are citizens of this country have the right of return. How we handle the situation is going to be a test for all of us.  

   

Do we need another "Intervention"?

The "Intervention" was a government initiative of the early 2000's. It involved taking over some of the welfare payments being made to some indigenous people and leaving a smaller amount for discretionary spending.  It involved bringing in alcohol free zones. Some welfare payments were tied to school attendance. There was a greater police presence in some indigenous areas.

The plan was supported federally by both Labor and the Coalition but it was opposed by the state Labor government and Human Rights Commissions. It was also supported by many indigenous elders.

These "interventions" were also heavily criticised by people who claimed "indigenous people have the right to self-determination". They claimed that the result was increased levels of incarceration for those who would not abide by the measures.  That the measures did result in lower levels of domestic violence and increased school attendance was not seen as a measure of success. It was claimed there were "other" ways of helping indigenous people. The measures were dropped and there has been an increase in domestic violence issues. Alcohol related issues have increased. School attendance is down. There are more instances of children not being even adequately cared for.

Should those measures have been kept in place? There are still people arguing that they were wrong, that this is not how indigenous affairs should be handled. 

These arguments are being made even while billions (yes, billions - not millions) of taxpayer dollars are being spent for no measurable improvements. Argue that the reverse is true and we are told it is the fault of "the system" - whatever that is. We are told that indigenous people need "greater" rather than lesser control over their own affairs.

Is that working? No it is not. It will not work. Handing more control to indigenous "leaders" has been shown over and over again not to work. The latest horrific (and it really is horrific) murder of a young child came about partly because of this. The child had been the subject of repeated welfare reports. Nothing was done. The police were involved. Nothing was done. She slept on a mattress in the "living room" of a house not really fit for human habitation. Not so long ago it had been a new dwelling that, appropriately cared for, was more than adequate. The child's grandfather is head of an indigenous housing organisation and is reportedly receiving a very high income. Everything suggests this child should have been safe, well housed and well cared for but she was not. What is more it was considered so "normal" by the authorities they did not intervene. 

Yes, it sounds "racist" to say that. When suggestions are made about what might be done then there are claims of "if you do that then there will be another "stolen generation" so we have to leave them where they are". 

Perhaps it is time for more people to read the report into the "stolen generation" and look at the number of successful claims. There has been just one successful claim in this state - but we are still told there were "many" children just taken from their families. 

I would not agree with a policy that in any way forcibly removed children from their families if they were being even just adequately cared for at home. That said I wonder whether we do not need to intervene much more strongly when children are not being properly cared for. Is it perhaps time to stop the nonsense of "the right to self-determination" when such large sums of money are being spent for no visible benefit?  

 

There is currently a joke

going around that goes something like this. 

A man goes to heaven. He is waiting for St Peter to fill out the paper work at his desk. He looks around the office and sees all the clocks on the wall.

"What are all the clocks for?"

"Oh, they are the lie clocks," St Peter tells him.

"The lie clocks?"

"Yes, if they move then we know people have told a lie."

"Oh. Whose is that one there?"

"That's Mother Teresa's. It has never moved. She never told a lie."

"And that one?"

"That's Abraham Lincoln's. He only ever told two lies."

"Can you tell me where the one belonging to Donald Trump is?"

"Oh Jesus has that one in his office. He uses it as an air conditioner."

Yes, funny but it could also be applied here to our Prime Minister and his Cabinet, particularly his Treasurer. We have, believe it or not, just been told that "Lying is how you build trust." 

Apparently you lie to the public and then, gradually over months and years, you lie to them even more so that they come to believe that their policies are necessary and the changes are necessary. They tell you "the situation has changed", that an external event or some natural disaster has made the change in policy necessary. It is not true of course but this is how they handle policy changes.

There are some changes coming up in the Budget that will do a great deal of economic harm. They are being made with an eye to a third term in government. They will appear to be giving to "struggling" families who are finding it hard to make ends meet. 

A retired bank economist tried to explain to me yesterday that the proposals being discussed in the press will raise rents by around twenty percent. They will not add to housing stock and may make it more expensive to actually build houses. We already have a housing shortage. This will add to the problems. But.... it sounds good. 

By the time the next election comes around this will almost certainly be blamed on the war in the Middle East and the fuel shortages. Will the government be held to account? It is unlikely. We will just see more solar panels and wind turbines on agricultural land and be told that this is how we reach the magical "net zero".  

There is a need to be quiet

if you live in close proximity to other people. At least, I thought there was.

I live in a group of twelve units. They are not flats where people live on top of one another but self contained ground floor dwellings. They are what Americans might call condominiums. 

When I moved here I expected there would be a need to be aware of those around me. I was prepared for a need to be quiet. I hope I have been.

The same is not true of everyone. There is an alcoholic who lives in another unit whose voice I often hear. There is someone who lives two doors from her. I often hear her talking to the alcoholic and going in and out of her unit. These are background sort of noises. I can cope with those. They occur during daylight hours.

No, it is my next door neighbour. My neighbours seems to keep very odd hours. It is not unusual for me to hear what sounds like the dishes being done at eleven in the evening. This is not quiet. It is clattering and banging. The footsteps backwards and forwards are rapid and heavy. 

There is a machine of some sort being used at times. It sounds like one of those heavier floor polishers used by commercial cleaners. The other morning it was used just after 3am.  Yes, of course it woke me. The wall between is not that thick.

This person goes in and out the back screen door. It is left to bang shut. The other door is shut with a bang. There are more heavy footsteps. 

Oddly I never hear a television set or radio.

I have no idea what this person does for a living. Is it shift work? I would not have thought so. I am not sure this person even does go to work. We have spoken - but only briefly.

Is it unreasonable to ask for quiet between ten at night and six in the morning? Is it unreasonable for people to be aware? 

It worries me. Am I making any noise which disturbs people? Nobody has said anything but I still wonder.

I suppose it is better than being able to hear the two young ones on the other side when they are in bed.   

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.