The "Voice to Parliament" referendum

was under discussion yesterday. It is a topic I have avoided discussing. To criticise the idea at all is seen by some as "racist" but there are good reasons for concern. 

The idea is that a "Voice" would give "First Nation" people the right to be consulted about issues which directly concern them. They actually already have that right but it could be enshrined in law with nothing more than an Act of Parliament.  A referendum would only be needed in order to enshrine this in the Constitution. 

Is that necessary? There are people who see this as important, very important. It is the "recognition" they crave.

The reality however may be very different. Indigenous people have had ways of being heard for many years. They had the right to vote very early on. In this state all men had the right to vote from 1856 and all women from 1895. It didn't matter whether you were "indigenous" or not. You could vote - and people did. 

Among the papers we sorted when my maternal grandfather died was the correspondence with his father, my great-grandfather, about the Sunday sermon he gave to the indigenous people at Point Pearce prior to an election. He was apparently encouraging the men to vote. These people had the means to elect a voice to parliament and they did. 

It was not until 1971 that an indigenous Australian was voted in to the Senate but, once there, Senator Bonner did an outstanding job for twenty-one years.  What is more he understood the real role of a Senator and did it for everyone in the state he represented, not just along the party-political lines the Senate has become. The Senior Cat once met him at a conference and spoke highly of his grasp of educational affairs. The good Senator saw education as the key to many things.

Perhaps it is education which is needed now, not an extra layer of government. This has been tried in the past. There have been various councils, committees, consultations and more. They have all been designed to "inform" and "advise" government about the needs of indigenous Australians. None of them have worked very well.

There is likely a very good reason for this. The needs of indigenous people are very diverse. Indigenous people in remote communities have very different needs from those in urban communities. People who identify as "indigenous" also vary immensely. I can instantly identify my friend M.... as indigenous. It is much more difficult to identify some others who claim indigenous heritage and claim to speak for indigenous people. 

M... is of the view that there is no need for a "Voice". He is of the view he has the right to vote, that others have the right to vote. He once considered nominating for the local council but thought politics, even at that level, was not right for him. We do have indigenous members of parliament at both state and federal level. Indigenous people actually have greater numbers there than women in representative terms. M... thinks indigenous people are doing well. Perhaps they are.

I think I want to know a lot more about this "Voice". It's an important issue, one we need to get right. In order to get a change to the Constitution it will take a majority of people in a majority of the states. It's a big ask. We need to be informed. 

That however is not the view of everyone. I was sent this yesterday. It apparently came from an article in our national newspaper three days ago. I will have to go to the library to ready it but it concerns me. People will want to know what they are voting for or it might not be achieved. 

So God is dead again

is He or She?  Our ABC (the Downunder equivalent of the BBC) is telling us this again. It's all to do with that statistic in the Census which told the powers-that-be that the number of Christians in the country had dropped - again.

Apparently it is something to gloat about. I am not sure why but the ABC seems to think this is a good thing.  Other media commentators also seem to believe it is a good thing. You know the sort of thing I mean...people have stopped believing in "myths and fairy stories".

To me however there is a bigger problem. People have stopped believing in the other things which made or make religion of some sort still relevant.

This was something the Senior Cat thought a lot about. He had some long conversations with priests and ministers and pastors and others about this very topic. He saw it as a teaching issue. Religion had to be relevant to everyday life. 

In the course of his teaching career he was also expected to be the local minister/priest or person of religion. He was expected to give guidance. It was the sort of thing teachers in remote areas were expected to do. They were expected to attend church and participate. We kittens went to church on Sundays and we saw our parent in the pulpit. He would be there with a glove puppet, a naughty monkey, and he would be telling a story. He would relate that story to real life. It was teaching rather than preaching. 

Three days ago a woman who had heard the Senior Cat teach/preach more than sixty years ago told me about one of those occasions - and how it had influenced her youngest to change course. That woman is of course now an old woman herself but it has stayed with her all this time.  The Senior Cat would be surprised and relieved rather than pleased. He worried about those church services. Was he doing the right thing? 

I think he was. He talked to those charged with religious duties about this very sort of thing. "Religion has to be relevant to every day life," he kept saying. He loved the language of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the language of the King James' Version of the Bible but he knew that other, more modern, versions were what would be understood. He knew they needed to be used. He wanted people to give examples of "practical Christianity" or "practical anything else they believe in for the good of others". 

The media isn't helping here - and it isn't just social media. There is a sense of gloating by organisations like the ABC. It is as if they are saying, "Isn't it good we have stopped believing all this Christianity nonsense?"  Naturally they will respect other religions for fear of being called to account but Christianity is fair game. If they are to be believed it's all about "sexual abuse" and "conversion therapy". I beg to differ. If someone can give me an example of a religion, any religion, which does not ask for acts of compassion to others at all then I would like to know about it. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. It isn't a matter of believing in "myths and fairy tales" or "miracles". It is a matter of believing in one another, of caring for each other, of following the commandment to "love one another".  As long as we believe that, whether we go to church and whether we have other beliefs or not, religion is still relevant.  The ABC should be supporting that.

 

The "per capita emissions" statistic

which is quoted as being "among the highest" (and sometimes just "the highest") in the world for Downunder residents has to stop.  Like many other statistics it is being abused.  Even if it was correct it would be wrong to use it.

I was heavily criticised a couple of days ago by someone who considers himself an expert on all things "climate change". Even his like-minded friends are tired of his constant talk about the topic. Yes, it is an important topic but there are other important things too. 

He caught me as I was unlocking the trusty trike and told me I needed to do even more. Why was I buying that plastic box? I should be recycling a cardboard box. Mmm...I don't think a cardboard one would last long in hot water.  He still wasn't listening.

I wish he would listen. There are reasons why our per capita emissions are so high in Downunder. It isn't because we are being irresponsible or we don't care. 

I have tried explaining this to people before. I live on the largest island in the world. It is also the smallest continent. It is also the driest continent. It has a population which is much, much smaller than that of California. Our population comes in somewhere between those of Texas and Florida. The vast majority of the population live around the coastline. There are huge distances which need to be travelled. In the past, thinking we have lots of space, major cities have spread outwards so even everyday travel involves distances. To do that many people use cars.  That adds significantly to emissions.

There is also the issue of supplying power - an essential in the modern world - to this spread out population. Power plants are expensive to build and providing the means of transmission is also expensive.  The smaller the population the more expensive it becomes. Until recently many people lived in single dwellings on blocks of land isolated from everyone else. It is still what most people want if they can afford it. It is still the way those planning expansion think.  Each of those dwellings needs to be cooled in summer and warmed in winter. Many of those dwellings also have two or more cars associated with them.

I could go on. Yes, we need to change the way we live. Most people will probably agree with that but there are also the issues of geography and population. If we all lived much closer together then our "per capita" level of emissions would drop and drop dramatically.  Our population is really very small. Our climate is generally such that if heating and cooling demands were less and car use was cut dramatically we would be one of the lowest polluters on the planet. Unfortunately that is not likely to happen.

The idea that we can reach the magical "net zero" through the use of renewable sources alone may or may not be achievable. Demands that we do it based on a "per capita" emissions statistic  do not take into account all the things which contribute to that statistic.  Perhaps it is time to rethink the way we use the statistics...and of course change the way we live.

The new Prime Minister of Downunder

is still strutting the world stage. It is Europe this week. He is mixing with "world leaders". His new partner is also doing her "first lady" stunts. His Foreign Minister is back in Asia, in particular Malaysia right now - where she was born. So far they have not fronted parliament.

The law requires them to do that no later than thirty days after the day appointed for the return of writs. They are going to be able to do it - just.  Once there the sitting schedule shows that they will also be spending very little time actually in the house.

It seems they are so confident about their increased numbers and their ability to get legislation through they are not too worried about the process of doing just that.  That worries me. 

The present government went to the election saying "we have a plan" and then "we have a plan" and then again "we have a plan". Once in a while there would be a vague reference to what that plan might actually be and an even vaguer reference as to how it might be achieved. It is now becoming obvious that those "plans" were all too often nothing but "ideas" that would appeal to an unthinking electorate which is compelled to attend the ballot box. Those of you who know me will also know that this is one of my concerns about our so-called "compulsory" voting system - the compulsion to attend the ballot box. It means people vote because they believe they must, not because they are informed. 

If the present government also believes it can get legislation for its agenda through parliament without too much scrutiny then we could be in real trouble. There are too many "plans" that need work before they are in any way fit for implementation. We have already been told that the promised lower electricity prices will not be achieved, that in fact we will be paying more than ever, a lot more. Pay rises are fuelling inflation and the Reserve Bank is trying to put the brakes on by raising interest rates. Those things would have happened whichever party was in power - but it will be harder to handle with all those "plans".

The Prime Minister has been smiling and pontificating overseas. He has been making himself out to be some sort of "world leader" as he shakes the hand of the French President. The French President is looking rather smug - as well he might given his country has just been paid close on a billion dollars for a supposed "breach of contract". (Contracts that size have a lot of wriggle room on both sides. Those in the know say that the French have been well and truly overpaid winners here.)  

Of course Europe is important to us. We have ignored Europe for far too long. While Britain was part of the EU we didn't really need to be too concerned. We let them do the work. Now we need to do some instead. But I wonder about all the claims our new politicians are making. I wonder about all those claims that we won't be able to do business with the EU unless we do this or that or the other thing. I wonder what the real agenda is because I am quite certain it is not the pleasant, rosy agenda the new PM is claiming.

Someone called him "Airbus Albo" recently... "Absent Albo" might be a useful description as well.  

The number of Christians is dropping

and now comprise around 50% of the population - according to the Census data this year.

Almost as soon as the figure was announced someone tried to place the blame for this on the former Prime Minister  (a church going "fundamentalist"). They also place blame on one of his predecessors (a devout Catholic who once began training for the priesthood), and a Cardinal (eventually acquitted of sexual abuse by a seven-nil decision in the High Court). 

That they themselves might have anything to do with the drop in the numbers of people going to church was something this person, and many others, were apparently not even prepared to contemplate. My own reasoning suggests that they have more to do with it than the three people they mentioned. 

When it is a choice between your child playing sport for their school on Sunday morning or going to church then sport is going to win. It will win because the child will be told by the school and their peers that this is what is expected of them. This is the right thing to do. Going to church is not right. It isn't what you do on Sundays. Sundays are for school sport. 

It used to be that Saturdays were for school sport, before that it was even played between Monday and Friday. Now it has crept into Sundays as well. 

There are other reasons for not going to church as well of course but the range of activities which have become available on Sundays have made an impact.  With that have come the very vocal non-believers who are determined to "convert" anyone with such beliefs into non-believers. 

It is also some of these non-believers who insist that Christmas cannot be celebrated but Eid (and like events) must be observed in order not to appear "prejudiced". 

The Senior Cat was a church goer. He went not because he believed in what he considered to be "myths and fairy stories" but because he believed in the other things a church community offered. These were things like friendship, community support, care for others, living your life in accordance with Christian principles, and more. It is perhaps as good a reason as any for going to church. From the time he started teaching he was called on, like so many other young male teachers of the time, to provide a local rural community with the Sunday service. That Sunday service was a very important event each week. It brought people together, people who often saw very little - if anything  - of their neighbours during the week. It also allowed people to share their worries and help one another.  

We had "RI" in school too - "religious instruction". It was just one lesson each week. In the city it was taken by volunteers - who often had discipline problems - but in rural areas it was usually a lesson provided by the teacher. I don't remember being told to believe anything in those lessons. I do remember being taught about the fundamental principle - "love one another". We were taught about "do unto others..." too. We were given examples in Bible stories and in other stories. 

All that seems to have gone in schools but the children across the road are well up on Ramadan. They know about other such events too, even if they have no idea what is meant by "disciple". 

I wonder what would happen if we stopped all school sport on Sundays, closed the shops which are now open, and the internet ceased functioning for a few hours. Would people go back to church? Would they go to find companionship and support? 

The Senior Cat was  very interested in why people didn't go to church. He was also interested in what might cause them to choose to go to church. We both agreed that school sport should be returned to Saturdays - even if people didn't use Sunday to go to church. Those who want to should not be prevented from doing so because Sunday is convenient for those who choose not to go to church.  Those who might find some sort of comfort or companionship there should  be able to go if they wish. Or should we simply accept that non-believers have more rights than believers? 

Renting a place

to live is becoming increasingly more difficult and more expensive. One of the minor parties wants to put a stop to that by making it impossible for landlords to raise the rent for at least the next two years.

I don't think that's going to help at all. It may actually make matters worse. Middle Cat and her partner have a rental property. It represents  what would otherwise have been Middle Cat's superannuation...the money they will in part depend on when her partner retires. The rent is helping to pay off the mortgage. They could almost certainly get more in rent but they have very good long term tenants in the property.  Both of them believe it is better to have it that way than worry about what sort of tenants they might get if these moved out. Over the years they have increased the rent in line with inflation...but only just. Right now they are also paying to own the property in other ways. The rent does not cover the costs of owning it - only owning it in the long term and other factors will make the property worth anything. 

But other people think they are "rich". They aren't. That property and the one they live in are modest.

Last night the woman presenting the financial report on the news mentioned that the Census figures which have just been released showed that there were a million unoccupied houses on Census night. That should shock people when we have so many people searching desperately for somewhere to rent, to sleep at night.

There is a house at the end of this street. It has been vacant for eight years now. There was an old couple in there when we moved in. The wife died first and the old man went on living there alone. I went in and out of the house on a number of occasions when he needed help. It was built in the seventies and well maintained if starting to look a little shabby. When I last saw it the place was much better than many rental properties I have entered. 

The old man's children have kept the place. They have relatives in the country who "holiday" in the city for the bare minimum number of nights to keep up the insurance requirements and the tax man happy. It has four bedrooms, a living area, a dining area and all the usual requirements. It is on a piece of land that is twice the size of a usual block of land. The outdoor area would be ideal for children to play in. If it is eventually sold the most likely thing is that it will be demolished and multiple dwellings will replace it. Right now though it is vacant almost all the year.

To me this is the sort of thing that should be under review. It is the third such property I am aware of in this district. Another has been vacant for eighteen years and another for almost five. They could be housing families in need. I know it may well be not what those who own the property want but is it right? There surely comes a time when the needs of those willing to pay rent outweigh whatever reasons the owners first had for not doing something about it.

 

Blocking traffic in order to

"protest" about "climate change" is about as irresponsible as you can get.  It actually endangers lives.

Yesterday some idiots - and there is no other word for them - blocked a major route in and out of the biggest state capital in Downunder. We were treated to footage of someone who had locked herself to the steering wheel of a car. I suppose it was her car and she had used fossil fuel to drive a considerable distance to get there - but that would be beside the point. There she was blocking a highway. The traffic was banking up. People wanted to get to work, to drop children off at school, get to medical appointments, care for the elderly and much more.

Now I am all for using public transport if you can. Brother Cat and Nephew Cat both studied for their university degrees on trains in this way. It took them no more time to travel by train than it would by car and they could use the time. I use train travel for similar purposes even now. 

I also know that not everyone can do that. There are people who need to use other forms of transport. Our cities are not so compact that everyone can walk or ride a bicycle to work. Public transport needs to be greatly improved everywhere - and this will almost certainly never happen.We are a car owning country. Most people can and do drive - probably far longer than they should. 

Trying to change that by "protesting" isn't going to work. It can't be done. Demands for more people to use electric vehicles are also unrealistic. Those vehicles are expensive and not as clean, green and versatile as we are often told. That may come but, right now, we need other vehicles as well.

All this seems to mean nothing at all to those protesting. For them it seems there is only one answer - action must be taken immediately. The cost is something they don't even consider. They don't see themselves as bearing any of the cost. It is somehow "other people" who need to do that.

And it is other people who are bearing the costs of their actions too. The cost to the taxpayer of the police operation, of the delays  caused and of the arrest of even a few are immense. It could have cost someone their life if an ambulance was delayed. 

There are other ways to protest. There are much more effective ways to protest that do no harm to anyone. Those ways require real research, time, and sustained effort. They don't provide the same short term adrenalin fix - but in the end they are much more effective.  Perhaps it is time to teach "Effective Protesting 101" in school?