There haven't been many posts on this site for a while. I have been very busy getting the house organised for sale, selling it and then packing it up. We had thought it might take a while to sell but within a week of the place finally going on the market it was all done and dusted.
So we now on the road officially. So far we are still in Australia - Brisbane at the moment - but in pretty short order we will be on our way to NZ and, after a short time back in Australia for Christmas and New Year we will be away to the real overseas. That is not to suggest that NZ is not overseas but it really feels like ducking next door for a while.
I may occasionally put a post on this site but I think for the most part we will be posting at our travel blog site which is at www.mytb.org/slowfeet
We intend to be on the road around the world for a year or two. Initially, it will be overland to the UK going through countries that are not actually engaged in hostilities if possible. After that it could be anywhere but we will, sooner or later, wander through many, many places. The real trick at the moment is to try to move a little, or more precisely, a lot more slowly than we have tended to in the past.
Sunday 26 October 2008
Thursday 28 August 2008
The Right to Know
I guess I am easily bemused but what precisely is wrong with people knowing what the price of petrol is in their general area, how retailers of groceries in the area compare on price or how the local schools are performing against some agreed criteria?
Sure, it is not the government fixing things. The government wont be fixing the price of petrol at a more reasonable level - let's say at less than $1.00 a litre. Nor will it be going through all of the items on the supermarket shelf fixing prices.
I am becoming very tired of people telling me that I shouldn't have the chance to compare prices across Coles and Woolies - they are our only options here - or to compare unit prices on articles - without a using a calculator or TWOMDs brilliant mental arithmetic (her way of warding off Alzheimers). I am not suggesting that we are desperately poor, but the habits of a lifetime of trying to get the best value for money are still strong and unit pricing will make that much, much easier.
For us fuel is an important purchase. I know it says something about our carbon footprint but we use a lot of things with motors - ute, tractor, quad bike, ride-on mower, generator, chain saw and various pumps - and they all need to be fed. Our fuel bill is significant. Add to that the fact that the most competitive retailers are over 100 kms away and you should appreciate that it would be very useful for us to know where the best price is on a particular day. Infuriating to check prices on the trip in to find that they have changed on the way out.
I was prepared to ignore the various scoffings and sundry other criticisms of some on the fuel and grocery schemes but the education issue has brought a wider range of paternalistic comment into the open.
I appreciate that it is critical to the success of any scheme to measure the performance of schools that the measurement system properly take account of a wide range of factors and that appropriate balances be achieved. This is a matter for the governments and system adminstrators. My issue is to do with the principle.
As a parent I went to considerable effort to avoid any involvement in the School Councils of the schools that my children attended. My strong preference was to trust the system to deliver a quality education to my children letting me know how the kids were going from time to time. I am embarrassed to admit that I was successful in this avoidance while they were at primary school.
Things changed in high school. Against my better judgement I was convinced to go to a meeting to be involved in an action planning exercise. We received a lot of information, had a strong debate and came to some pretty reasonable conclusions. Then the representative of the Department thanked us for our time and, basically, said that while our approach was interesting it was not what was going to happen. The experts had a different idea of where the school would go over the next 5 to 10 years. Along with others from that meeting, I spent the next 7 years on the School Council.
Once our community had information and the opportunity to discuss it, we were able to make decisions about the direction that our school should take. We were also in a position to make the rest of the community aware and to use that grunt to take on the Department of Education. We succeeded, but not without the promise of bringing 200 4WDs complete with pig dogs to town for a chat.
It would have been an option, of course, for some parents to simply send their children to another school. Perhaps not so comfortable for the children who would have had to travel some distance or to board but it was an option that was taken up by some parents in the area.
The point of this little yarn, in case it is not clear, is that without information we would have had no chance. No chance to move to change the school and no chance to make a decision to send our kids elsewhere.
The experts may also have been right. The though never crossed my mind at the time but it is possible. But they could not convince the parents. They could not provide information or analysis that was compelling for a reasonably competent community.
Of course, even the provision of full and accurate information about the outcomes that schools achieve will be of limited value. It will provide us with 'league tables' and might inspire some to get stuck into their local school and try to improve their outcomes. If the money was to go to those on the top of the table then the poorer schools will slowly become worse and worse. And if you are in a place where there are very limited options and your local school is on the poor end of the table then you are in deep trouble.
The trick is to use the 'league tables' to focus on the bottom schools with money and other resources so that they don't stay at the bottom of the pile while providing enough incentive to the 'top' schools to do their best to stay there.
Julia Gillard seems to be singing that song strongly at the moment. If she is serious then she has a winner and perhaps there will be an education revolution.
And about time!
Sure, it is not the government fixing things. The government wont be fixing the price of petrol at a more reasonable level - let's say at less than $1.00 a litre. Nor will it be going through all of the items on the supermarket shelf fixing prices.
I am becoming very tired of people telling me that I shouldn't have the chance to compare prices across Coles and Woolies - they are our only options here - or to compare unit prices on articles - without a using a calculator or TWOMDs brilliant mental arithmetic (her way of warding off Alzheimers). I am not suggesting that we are desperately poor, but the habits of a lifetime of trying to get the best value for money are still strong and unit pricing will make that much, much easier.
For us fuel is an important purchase. I know it says something about our carbon footprint but we use a lot of things with motors - ute, tractor, quad bike, ride-on mower, generator, chain saw and various pumps - and they all need to be fed. Our fuel bill is significant. Add to that the fact that the most competitive retailers are over 100 kms away and you should appreciate that it would be very useful for us to know where the best price is on a particular day. Infuriating to check prices on the trip in to find that they have changed on the way out.
I was prepared to ignore the various scoffings and sundry other criticisms of some on the fuel and grocery schemes but the education issue has brought a wider range of paternalistic comment into the open.
I appreciate that it is critical to the success of any scheme to measure the performance of schools that the measurement system properly take account of a wide range of factors and that appropriate balances be achieved. This is a matter for the governments and system adminstrators. My issue is to do with the principle.
As a parent I went to considerable effort to avoid any involvement in the School Councils of the schools that my children attended. My strong preference was to trust the system to deliver a quality education to my children letting me know how the kids were going from time to time. I am embarrassed to admit that I was successful in this avoidance while they were at primary school.
Things changed in high school. Against my better judgement I was convinced to go to a meeting to be involved in an action planning exercise. We received a lot of information, had a strong debate and came to some pretty reasonable conclusions. Then the representative of the Department thanked us for our time and, basically, said that while our approach was interesting it was not what was going to happen. The experts had a different idea of where the school would go over the next 5 to 10 years. Along with others from that meeting, I spent the next 7 years on the School Council.
Once our community had information and the opportunity to discuss it, we were able to make decisions about the direction that our school should take. We were also in a position to make the rest of the community aware and to use that grunt to take on the Department of Education. We succeeded, but not without the promise of bringing 200 4WDs complete with pig dogs to town for a chat.
It would have been an option, of course, for some parents to simply send their children to another school. Perhaps not so comfortable for the children who would have had to travel some distance or to board but it was an option that was taken up by some parents in the area.
The point of this little yarn, in case it is not clear, is that without information we would have had no chance. No chance to move to change the school and no chance to make a decision to send our kids elsewhere.
The experts may also have been right. The though never crossed my mind at the time but it is possible. But they could not convince the parents. They could not provide information or analysis that was compelling for a reasonably competent community.
Of course, even the provision of full and accurate information about the outcomes that schools achieve will be of limited value. It will provide us with 'league tables' and might inspire some to get stuck into their local school and try to improve their outcomes. If the money was to go to those on the top of the table then the poorer schools will slowly become worse and worse. And if you are in a place where there are very limited options and your local school is on the poor end of the table then you are in deep trouble.
The trick is to use the 'league tables' to focus on the bottom schools with money and other resources so that they don't stay at the bottom of the pile while providing enough incentive to the 'top' schools to do their best to stay there.
Julia Gillard seems to be singing that song strongly at the moment. If she is serious then she has a winner and perhaps there will be an education revolution.
And about time!
Saturday 16 August 2008
How to Bugger It Up
The analysis of the major scare that the Northern Territory Labor Government had last week has focused almost entirely on what went wrong with the election. But some, perhaps most, of the reasons for its smack in the mouth, started a long time ago. If they are to get their act together then they need to make a few changes. So I thought that I would get back into my blog and provide a bit of advice.
A large majority is something that feels good on election night. Everyone is happy. After a while though the groups start to form up, positions are allocated, noses go out of joint and aggravation grows. So it did with NT Labor. We had members crossing the floor and no resultant penalty. A Minister resigns on principle and the reaction is not much more than a shrug of the shoulders. A popular Chief Minister became isolated from the troops and was eventually removed. The new CM was someone who had been around but who was not as well known as some may have thought. That large majority allows for indulgence.
The larger problem with the Labor Government, however, is on the policy front. Every government, over time, gathers baggage. It is not the job of government, contrary to the apparent view of some of the media minders around, to make people happy all of the time.
The decision making, governing job, necessarily means that some people are going to be unhappy with some decisions. Of course, people are not silly. They know that it wont always go their way. They balance things out over time but the unhappiness can build up.
Up here, with mobile polling, we have election week or two rather than election day. Time on the booths here, and with not too many in a smaller community that turn out to work on the booths, means that you spend a long time in the sun. The great thing is that you get to meet all of your neighbours from around the community and you have time to chat. My survey of the people who passed through the booths I worked on was not in any way scientific. It was just talking to people who wanted to talk about what had crept up their noses and was causing them to think about how they might vote.
The calling of the election a year early was an issue along with the lousy strategy of having a go a Terry Mills. A nice bloke. OK he is useless and hopeless but kicking him wasn't necessary. The other issues varied:
So, what should they do about the situation?
First, make decisions based on the evidence and after consulting with interested stakeholders. Don't delay and don't duck the tough ones. Take a line from the pool fencing decision. Unpopular with a lot of people and a strong anti line taken by the media but, 6 years down the track, it is part of the furniture and, based on the average number of deaths in the previous 10 years, there are now at least 14 children alive who would not have been around.
Secondly, get the process right. Talk to people. Explain, consult and negotiate. Don't duck the tough meetings and don't let public servants duck them either. For instance, local government reform had the potential to be a winner but forcing people was just stupid. At the cost of a little more time and more attention to meeting the needs of people, rather than the government, there could have been a lot of positive outcomes.
Thirdly, be a Labor Government. If the public had wanted a tough on crime, lock 'em up, government they would have put the other mob in. Certainly, they want the problem of anti-social behaviour fixed but not by following the policies promoted by the red neck letter writers to the NT News. Labor Governments should care about people. They should have the courage to look at problems holistically and maybe even the intelligence to find innovative solutions to difficult social problems.
And finally, don't be continually conned on the big projects. We all know we need them and they should never be ignored but they are not going to make people vote for Labor. You see we all know that the other mob can do that stuff too. They are not what sets Labor apart from the CLP.
How about not trying to steal the clothes from the CLP for a while and, instead, try to pinch some of the clothes from the Greens? Not all of them, just enough to let people know that you actually do care about the environment and that you aren't just reacting to an election cycle.
That will do for now. Get on with it and I will provide some more advice later.
A large majority is something that feels good on election night. Everyone is happy. After a while though the groups start to form up, positions are allocated, noses go out of joint and aggravation grows. So it did with NT Labor. We had members crossing the floor and no resultant penalty. A Minister resigns on principle and the reaction is not much more than a shrug of the shoulders. A popular Chief Minister became isolated from the troops and was eventually removed. The new CM was someone who had been around but who was not as well known as some may have thought. That large majority allows for indulgence.
The larger problem with the Labor Government, however, is on the policy front. Every government, over time, gathers baggage. It is not the job of government, contrary to the apparent view of some of the media minders around, to make people happy all of the time.
The decision making, governing job, necessarily means that some people are going to be unhappy with some decisions. Of course, people are not silly. They know that it wont always go their way. They balance things out over time but the unhappiness can build up.
Up here, with mobile polling, we have election week or two rather than election day. Time on the booths here, and with not too many in a smaller community that turn out to work on the booths, means that you spend a long time in the sun. The great thing is that you get to meet all of your neighbours from around the community and you have time to chat. My survey of the people who passed through the booths I worked on was not in any way scientific. It was just talking to people who wanted to talk about what had crept up their noses and was causing them to think about how they might vote.
The calling of the election a year early was an issue along with the lousy strategy of having a go a Terry Mills. A nice bloke. OK he is useless and hopeless but kicking him wasn't necessary. The other issues varied:
- Local government reform. Had to happen but badly handled and arrogant. The government seemed to be hiding something and could never get its story about the need for reform sorted out;
- The Daly. We need a proper plan to protect the river - and the fishing - but at the same time to give certainty to the farmers. They have had time to come up with a proper plan and make a decision. Probably just holding off until after the election;
- Animal welfare. It has been on the agenda for a long time and they keep saying they will do something. Had a review but nothing has eventuated. They have had time;
- Litchfield Park. It needs a proper maintenance schedule. Not good enough that sites are not opened for months after the Wet. They have had time to sort it and don't seem to care. All the money is in the bloody Waterfront;
- Gamba. Great grass. Should be banned. It is time that a proper plan was put in place.
- Mimosa pigra. Government doesn't seem to care that it is getting out of control again.
So, what should they do about the situation?
First, make decisions based on the evidence and after consulting with interested stakeholders. Don't delay and don't duck the tough ones. Take a line from the pool fencing decision. Unpopular with a lot of people and a strong anti line taken by the media but, 6 years down the track, it is part of the furniture and, based on the average number of deaths in the previous 10 years, there are now at least 14 children alive who would not have been around.
Secondly, get the process right. Talk to people. Explain, consult and negotiate. Don't duck the tough meetings and don't let public servants duck them either. For instance, local government reform had the potential to be a winner but forcing people was just stupid. At the cost of a little more time and more attention to meeting the needs of people, rather than the government, there could have been a lot of positive outcomes.
Thirdly, be a Labor Government. If the public had wanted a tough on crime, lock 'em up, government they would have put the other mob in. Certainly, they want the problem of anti-social behaviour fixed but not by following the policies promoted by the red neck letter writers to the NT News. Labor Governments should care about people. They should have the courage to look at problems holistically and maybe even the intelligence to find innovative solutions to difficult social problems.
And finally, don't be continually conned on the big projects. We all know we need them and they should never be ignored but they are not going to make people vote for Labor. You see we all know that the other mob can do that stuff too. They are not what sets Labor apart from the CLP.
How about not trying to steal the clothes from the CLP for a while and, instead, try to pinch some of the clothes from the Greens? Not all of them, just enough to let people know that you actually do care about the environment and that you aren't just reacting to an election cycle.
That will do for now. Get on with it and I will provide some more advice later.
Friday 9 May 2008
Smoke Gets in Your Eyes
Every year in the early part of the Dry there is the question of burning. Do you burn or not? Every soil test says that there is no organic matter in our soils. That means that they are lower in overall fertility, water and nutrient retention etc, etc. We burn it. Often every year.
On our bush block we don't burn. This year I was able to put in 10 metre breaks around three sides. The fourth is pretty swampy until about mid June but we have cattle on it and they are keeping the gamba down to about a meter.
Day before yesterday on the brushcutter in the citrus orchard smelt smoke. Looked around. Nothing I could see. Carried on. Again. Definitely smoke. On the quad and off to have a look. Through the bush prettly smartly. Eastern boundary is OK. Coming in from the South and has crossed the boundary and the break - 20 metres. Going to need help on this one.
No walkie-talkie. Forget the Next G. Less than 10 kms from town but doesnt work. Quad flies back to the house. Phone the firies. Drop the slasher off the tractor. Ute wont handle the swamp. Put the water tank and pump on the carry all. Get the bore going. Head for the fire.
Firies arrive and have a look. You do what you can here. It is going to go North. We will go around the wet area and try to stop it going into the other blocks.
Need to pull it up on the break - but the grass there is still pretty high. With the wind bearing north we can handle it. Changes. Comes towards the West. Tractor can only work on the higher spots but grade a break there anyway. TWOMD arrives on the quad. Properly dressed for a fire. Unlike me.
Use the quad with its 75 litre tank and little spray - seemed to get smaller as the day went on - to put out the fire on the break, after it comes out of the 4 metre gamba lining the break.
Up and down the line. Only 800 metres but feels longer. Fire has crossed our northern boundary and is in to the Kngarakan block. Wont stop until the road now - if then. That is 3 kms away. Only a couple of skinny breaks in that country. This fire wont even take a breath.
Theo arrives. Off the plane only hours earlier and jet lagged but if it gets across our western break it will take his place. Theo and Pat handle the tractor. Pipe comes off the tank. Need a better connection. Works OK but not in these conditions.
Under control so I head around to see how it is going on the Southern boundary. Neighbours are back burning and the Firies are there. Under control.
Theo sprinting through the swamp. Fire has jumped over 300 metres into his block.
No time. Need to stop it before it gets into the high gamba, then the mangos and then the house.
Only one way - through the worst of the bog. Didn't know the quad could do that. Through and around the fire. Not high grass but burning well. Bloody wind is changing from East to South at whim. Willy-willys are creating havoc. Hot. Smoke pretty bad. Pat and Theo bring the tractor around. Quad buggered. Work along the line. Getting there. Fire truck arrives and we start to get it under control.
Cattle and goats are frantic but they huddle. Fire gradually coming under control. Work the tractor along the line and back with Theo holding the connection and me on the hose and driving. Good team.
Under control again. Go for a run on the quad - working again - along the main break to have a look. A sneaky fire has come across the break and is a metre from the main orchard block. Put it out. Almost an anti climax but lucky that I am a worrier.
Time for a beer. Now 5.30. It started at 10.30. Time flies when you are having fun.
Where did it start? Don't know but it came from the neighbours on the South side. They had a tough time pulling it up burning back against the wind. It made the road and crossed it but was stopped pretty quickly after that.
Early burns are good - so they say. Not a blade of grass left. Big trees burning and down. Dead animals. Smoke makes your eyes water.
On our bush block we don't burn. This year I was able to put in 10 metre breaks around three sides. The fourth is pretty swampy until about mid June but we have cattle on it and they are keeping the gamba down to about a meter.
Day before yesterday on the brushcutter in the citrus orchard smelt smoke. Looked around. Nothing I could see. Carried on. Again. Definitely smoke. On the quad and off to have a look. Through the bush prettly smartly. Eastern boundary is OK. Coming in from the South and has crossed the boundary and the break - 20 metres. Going to need help on this one.
No walkie-talkie. Forget the Next G. Less than 10 kms from town but doesnt work. Quad flies back to the house. Phone the firies. Drop the slasher off the tractor. Ute wont handle the swamp. Put the water tank and pump on the carry all. Get the bore going. Head for the fire.
Firies arrive and have a look. You do what you can here. It is going to go North. We will go around the wet area and try to stop it going into the other blocks.
Need to pull it up on the break - but the grass there is still pretty high. With the wind bearing north we can handle it. Changes. Comes towards the West. Tractor can only work on the higher spots but grade a break there anyway. TWOMD arrives on the quad. Properly dressed for a fire. Unlike me.
Use the quad with its 75 litre tank and little spray - seemed to get smaller as the day went on - to put out the fire on the break, after it comes out of the 4 metre gamba lining the break.
Up and down the line. Only 800 metres but feels longer. Fire has crossed our northern boundary and is in to the Kngarakan block. Wont stop until the road now - if then. That is 3 kms away. Only a couple of skinny breaks in that country. This fire wont even take a breath.
Theo arrives. Off the plane only hours earlier and jet lagged but if it gets across our western break it will take his place. Theo and Pat handle the tractor. Pipe comes off the tank. Need a better connection. Works OK but not in these conditions.
Under control so I head around to see how it is going on the Southern boundary. Neighbours are back burning and the Firies are there. Under control.
Theo sprinting through the swamp. Fire has jumped over 300 metres into his block.
No time. Need to stop it before it gets into the high gamba, then the mangos and then the house.
Only one way - through the worst of the bog. Didn't know the quad could do that. Through and around the fire. Not high grass but burning well. Bloody wind is changing from East to South at whim. Willy-willys are creating havoc. Hot. Smoke pretty bad. Pat and Theo bring the tractor around. Quad buggered. Work along the line. Getting there. Fire truck arrives and we start to get it under control.
Cattle and goats are frantic but they huddle. Fire gradually coming under control. Work the tractor along the line and back with Theo holding the connection and me on the hose and driving. Good team.
Under control again. Go for a run on the quad - working again - along the main break to have a look. A sneaky fire has come across the break and is a metre from the main orchard block. Put it out. Almost an anti climax but lucky that I am a worrier.
Time for a beer. Now 5.30. It started at 10.30. Time flies when you are having fun.
Where did it start? Don't know but it came from the neighbours on the South side. They had a tough time pulling it up burning back against the wind. It made the road and crossed it but was stopped pretty quickly after that.
Early burns are good - so they say. Not a blade of grass left. Big trees burning and down. Dead animals. Smoke makes your eyes water.
Friday 14 March 2008
Bogabilla Economy
It would take a hard or a sick heart to fail to be saddened by the story on Lateline last night about Aboriginal girls at Bogabilla who are prostituting themselves to truckdrivers. A sad, sad story that makes people angry and frustrated. All over the media this morning we have people saying that something should be done about it.
Something should certainly be done about it - but what?
Do you target the truck drivers? Possibly.
You might be able to convince them that they shouldn't pick up girls for sex at Bogabilla or anywhere else. You might be able to have the police or transport inspectors harrass them so much that they are scared to pick up girls. You might even be able to convince them that they should remain at all times faithfull to their partners - if they have one. All things are possible and they could be one target but do you hold out much hope? I don't.
Do you target the girls? Probably.
Maybe you can convince them that they don't need money or the things that it can buy. Alternatively, you will need to convince them that there are other ways to get some money. Perhaps there are jobs for them? Perhaps they need some education and skills so that they can get jobs? Perhaps they will need to move from Bogabilla to the city so that they can get a job, leaving their family and friends behind and taking their chances?
You might even try to convince some of them that they shouldn't prostitute themselves because it is the 'wrong' thing to do, that it is dangerous to their health or that it could lead to pregnancy - although I suspect that they know that one well.
Should the parents and community be the target? Definitely.
Practices such as those described on the Lateline program are not new. The same story could have been told about mining camps and towns, construction camps, station work camps. In fact, almost anywhere that there are reasonable numbers of young men, mostly single with access to plenty of money and some young women who don't have access to money to buy the things they want.
Before we start to rush about targeting people and trying to fix the problem it makes a lot of sense to work out what it is that we are actually trying to fix. Do we want to stop all prostitution at truck stops, mining camps etc? Do we want to stop prostitution involving young or underage girls? Or do we really want to give all of these young girls other options for raising the money they want and need along with the chance for a better quality of life in the long term?
I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer to climb into a truck in the middle of the night and be screwed silly rather than work in a job that provides some reasonable satisfaction and a good wage. If I am right for at least some of the girls then a primary target has to be the development of a culture in the community that values work and the education, training and attitudes that you need to be able to get and hold a job. To do this you wont just be talking to the girls. You will be talking to old men, old women, middle aged and the kids. You will be engaging with everyone and working with those who respond to develop strategies that they see as sensible to achieve the outcomes they want.
Over time, you will be trying to change the culture of every Bogabilla so that the people have options for participation in the mainstream economy in addition to ducking down to the truck stop to raise a quick $50 off some randy trucker.
It will, of course, take time to make the changes required and there will continue to be failures along the way. It wont meet the need of the media or even the hand wringers. It will need politicians and bureacrats that are able to both communicate and to hold the line in the face of tabloid criticism. There will still be the chance that some girls will take the truck stop option but, with a sustained, practical and sensitive approach positive change is a chance.
With a rush about, shock horror, reactive approach there will be no change and the truck stop will remain the only realistic option for young girls for a long time.
Something should certainly be done about it - but what?
Do you target the truck drivers? Possibly.
You might be able to convince them that they shouldn't pick up girls for sex at Bogabilla or anywhere else. You might be able to have the police or transport inspectors harrass them so much that they are scared to pick up girls. You might even be able to convince them that they should remain at all times faithfull to their partners - if they have one. All things are possible and they could be one target but do you hold out much hope? I don't.
Do you target the girls? Probably.
Maybe you can convince them that they don't need money or the things that it can buy. Alternatively, you will need to convince them that there are other ways to get some money. Perhaps there are jobs for them? Perhaps they need some education and skills so that they can get jobs? Perhaps they will need to move from Bogabilla to the city so that they can get a job, leaving their family and friends behind and taking their chances?
You might even try to convince some of them that they shouldn't prostitute themselves because it is the 'wrong' thing to do, that it is dangerous to their health or that it could lead to pregnancy - although I suspect that they know that one well.
Should the parents and community be the target? Definitely.
Practices such as those described on the Lateline program are not new. The same story could have been told about mining camps and towns, construction camps, station work camps. In fact, almost anywhere that there are reasonable numbers of young men, mostly single with access to plenty of money and some young women who don't have access to money to buy the things they want.
Before we start to rush about targeting people and trying to fix the problem it makes a lot of sense to work out what it is that we are actually trying to fix. Do we want to stop all prostitution at truck stops, mining camps etc? Do we want to stop prostitution involving young or underage girls? Or do we really want to give all of these young girls other options for raising the money they want and need along with the chance for a better quality of life in the long term?
I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer to climb into a truck in the middle of the night and be screwed silly rather than work in a job that provides some reasonable satisfaction and a good wage. If I am right for at least some of the girls then a primary target has to be the development of a culture in the community that values work and the education, training and attitudes that you need to be able to get and hold a job. To do this you wont just be talking to the girls. You will be talking to old men, old women, middle aged and the kids. You will be engaging with everyone and working with those who respond to develop strategies that they see as sensible to achieve the outcomes they want.
Over time, you will be trying to change the culture of every Bogabilla so that the people have options for participation in the mainstream economy in addition to ducking down to the truck stop to raise a quick $50 off some randy trucker.
It will, of course, take time to make the changes required and there will continue to be failures along the way. It wont meet the need of the media or even the hand wringers. It will need politicians and bureacrats that are able to both communicate and to hold the line in the face of tabloid criticism. There will still be the chance that some girls will take the truck stop option but, with a sustained, practical and sensitive approach positive change is a chance.
With a rush about, shock horror, reactive approach there will be no change and the truck stop will remain the only realistic option for young girls for a long time.
Wednesday 20 February 2008
What is it about whales?
I have been known to kill things. Never humans but a variety of other animals have met their end at my hands. Cows, sheep, dogs, chooks, ducks, turkeys, snakes, rats, mice and even a bird or two.
I don't enjoy killing things. Most of the animals I have killed have been eaten by me or mine. Some have been in great difficulty and needed to be put out of their misery and a couple have been a threat to me or mine that couldn't be dealt with any other way.
The point is that I have nothing against killing animals provided that there is a purpose, the animal is given proper respect and there is no threat to the species. I can understand that others don't share this view and will abhor killing of animals or, perhaps, some animals.
I know that some will react with horror but what precisely is the difference between a whale and a cow, or a dog or any other animal? Why are whales sacrosanct? Certainly those that are threatened or endangered should be protected along with every other animal that is similarly under threat but what of those that are not?
I have seen many whales in their natural state. I have enjoyed watching them leap out of the water, slap their tails, look after their calves and generally swim about. I have also enjoyed watching cows with their calves mooching about the paddock, chooks scratching about in the gravel and dogs playing in the floodwaters.
Is it that we don't like the idea of eating whales? Certainly, we seem to be offended by people who do eat them and seem to enjoy doing so. Japanese, Icelanders, Inuit, Norwegians and Jamaicans all cop a flogging because they like to eat the flesh of whales. Do Indians who regard cows as sacred get upset with us? Do we get upset with Chinese who eat dogs - and a raft of other things that we don't?
Or are we simply demonstrating our insensitivity for other people's cultures? We don't do it so no one else should. Are we cultural imperialists? It sounds like it to me.
I don't enjoy killing things. Most of the animals I have killed have been eaten by me or mine. Some have been in great difficulty and needed to be put out of their misery and a couple have been a threat to me or mine that couldn't be dealt with any other way.
The point is that I have nothing against killing animals provided that there is a purpose, the animal is given proper respect and there is no threat to the species. I can understand that others don't share this view and will abhor killing of animals or, perhaps, some animals.
I know that some will react with horror but what precisely is the difference between a whale and a cow, or a dog or any other animal? Why are whales sacrosanct? Certainly those that are threatened or endangered should be protected along with every other animal that is similarly under threat but what of those that are not?
I have seen many whales in their natural state. I have enjoyed watching them leap out of the water, slap their tails, look after their calves and generally swim about. I have also enjoyed watching cows with their calves mooching about the paddock, chooks scratching about in the gravel and dogs playing in the floodwaters.
Is it that we don't like the idea of eating whales? Certainly, we seem to be offended by people who do eat them and seem to enjoy doing so. Japanese, Icelanders, Inuit, Norwegians and Jamaicans all cop a flogging because they like to eat the flesh of whales. Do Indians who regard cows as sacred get upset with us? Do we get upset with Chinese who eat dogs - and a raft of other things that we don't?
Or are we simply demonstrating our insensitivity for other people's cultures? We don't do it so no one else should. Are we cultural imperialists? It sounds like it to me.
Sunday 10 February 2008
Public Servants Beware
The apology to the Stolen Generation has been discussed by so many that almost every point that could be made has been. There is one area that hasn't had much coverage though and I think it is worth putting down a few words.
First though, I am very pleased that the apology has finally been made by the Australian Parliament. It will draw a line under a history that we can not be proud of and let us start to deal with the outcomes in a serious and respectful way - with any luck.
But, just for the moment let me put the people who were taken to one side and focus on the takers.
I had the task some years ago of preparing a submission to the inquiry that generated the Bringing Them Home report. It was a formal document and had to be accurate. I had access to a range of material including a lot from the Australian Archives. A lot of what I found has been talked about, some of it is available to the public but I don't think that is the case with it all. I guess, if I felt that I could speak frankly, I could put the lie to a lot of the rubbish that I have seen in the commentary. The habits of 37 years are hard to break though. And people wouldn't believe me anyway.
It was interesting as a sidelight in this work to consider the position of the public servants involved. These people were mainly police and welfare workers although a few nurses were also involved on occasion. I was able to talk directly to some of the people that had been involved during the 50's and into the 60's and even to one bloke who had been involved before WWII.
The law that was in place at the time and the policy on which it was based required that children of mixed race marriages be taken and placed in care. Public servants were required to do the job and, pursuant to the same requirements that exist today, they carried out their duties.
I came across a file that dealt in some part with policy issues. On it I found a document that had been prepared by a group of patrol officers working for the (then) Native Welfare Branch in the early 50's. These men were arguing that the policy was wrong and should be changed. If I recall the argument properly, and I have no copy - that would be illegal - the men put forcefully that the basis of the policy was completely wrong, that race was not and should not be an issue but that if children, any children, were in danger then they should be taken. The submission included examples of mixed race families who cared well for their children.
The submission did not get much of a run in the large Commonwealth Department. However, these blokes were obviously fired up so they eventually sent it direct to the Minister. There ends the story on the file.
I did get a chance to talk to one of the men who was still alive and prepared to talk.
They were not all sacked or disciplined but, in those days, and possibly in these, this type of behaviour is at least 'courageous', particularly when carried out by officers who are a long way down the pecking order. They were, after all, operational people far removed from the seat of power in the Commonwealth. They were not 'expert' and nor could they be expected to know all of the nuances of academic thinking that supported the policy position that they were required to enforce.
Not all of their colleagues supported the stand taken. Most of their colleagues in the system did what they were told. It is interesting though that, increasingly, purely race based seizures began to stop. Children were still removed but the cases for those removals were based on the needs of the child and the lack of care it was receiving in its home rather than on the race of the child. This had the effect of seeing a greater proportion of 'full blood' Aboriginal children taken whereas previously it was primarily mixed race children taken.
It wasn't until 1984, shortly following self-government for the NT, that the old Commonwealth Ordinance was overtaken by legislation that required that any Aboriginal child taken by welfare officers by fostered or adopted by Aboriginal families wherever possible.
The issues in this area are a minefield for those who make the laws but, I respectfully suggest, are much more so for those who must administer them. We now have welfare officers that are so worried about being labeled 'child stealers' that they leave kids in what can turn out to be dangerous situations. Where they do take kids they have great difficulty finding places for them where they will receive necessary care. Seventy percent of the population in the NT should not be fostering or adopting Aboriginal kids. Maintaining families is a priority.
If you are a public servant in the system working in the community at close to the bottom of the pecking order and you believe the system is wrong today then what are your options? Put your views up through the system, go public in the media, write to a politician or simply walk away. Not too different to the options 5o years ago.
I was a public servant for a long time. Over that time I was often in a position where I objected to or disagreed with a decision made although, as time went on, I had more opportunity to put my views and have them given a hearing. My job was still on the line on occasion and I can empathise to a degree with the position that those patrol officers were in back in the '50s.
The way to fix the system of course is to have legislators make better policy. That, in turn, requires that the community be better informed about issues and consequences.
Better get on with it.
First though, I am very pleased that the apology has finally been made by the Australian Parliament. It will draw a line under a history that we can not be proud of and let us start to deal with the outcomes in a serious and respectful way - with any luck.
But, just for the moment let me put the people who were taken to one side and focus on the takers.
I had the task some years ago of preparing a submission to the inquiry that generated the Bringing Them Home report. It was a formal document and had to be accurate. I had access to a range of material including a lot from the Australian Archives. A lot of what I found has been talked about, some of it is available to the public but I don't think that is the case with it all. I guess, if I felt that I could speak frankly, I could put the lie to a lot of the rubbish that I have seen in the commentary. The habits of 37 years are hard to break though. And people wouldn't believe me anyway.
It was interesting as a sidelight in this work to consider the position of the public servants involved. These people were mainly police and welfare workers although a few nurses were also involved on occasion. I was able to talk directly to some of the people that had been involved during the 50's and into the 60's and even to one bloke who had been involved before WWII.
The law that was in place at the time and the policy on which it was based required that children of mixed race marriages be taken and placed in care. Public servants were required to do the job and, pursuant to the same requirements that exist today, they carried out their duties.
I came across a file that dealt in some part with policy issues. On it I found a document that had been prepared by a group of patrol officers working for the (then) Native Welfare Branch in the early 50's. These men were arguing that the policy was wrong and should be changed. If I recall the argument properly, and I have no copy - that would be illegal - the men put forcefully that the basis of the policy was completely wrong, that race was not and should not be an issue but that if children, any children, were in danger then they should be taken. The submission included examples of mixed race families who cared well for their children.
The submission did not get much of a run in the large Commonwealth Department. However, these blokes were obviously fired up so they eventually sent it direct to the Minister. There ends the story on the file.
I did get a chance to talk to one of the men who was still alive and prepared to talk.
They were not all sacked or disciplined but, in those days, and possibly in these, this type of behaviour is at least 'courageous', particularly when carried out by officers who are a long way down the pecking order. They were, after all, operational people far removed from the seat of power in the Commonwealth. They were not 'expert' and nor could they be expected to know all of the nuances of academic thinking that supported the policy position that they were required to enforce.
Not all of their colleagues supported the stand taken. Most of their colleagues in the system did what they were told. It is interesting though that, increasingly, purely race based seizures began to stop. Children were still removed but the cases for those removals were based on the needs of the child and the lack of care it was receiving in its home rather than on the race of the child. This had the effect of seeing a greater proportion of 'full blood' Aboriginal children taken whereas previously it was primarily mixed race children taken.
It wasn't until 1984, shortly following self-government for the NT, that the old Commonwealth Ordinance was overtaken by legislation that required that any Aboriginal child taken by welfare officers by fostered or adopted by Aboriginal families wherever possible.
The issues in this area are a minefield for those who make the laws but, I respectfully suggest, are much more so for those who must administer them. We now have welfare officers that are so worried about being labeled 'child stealers' that they leave kids in what can turn out to be dangerous situations. Where they do take kids they have great difficulty finding places for them where they will receive necessary care. Seventy percent of the population in the NT should not be fostering or adopting Aboriginal kids. Maintaining families is a priority.
If you are a public servant in the system working in the community at close to the bottom of the pecking order and you believe the system is wrong today then what are your options? Put your views up through the system, go public in the media, write to a politician or simply walk away. Not too different to the options 5o years ago.
I was a public servant for a long time. Over that time I was often in a position where I objected to or disagreed with a decision made although, as time went on, I had more opportunity to put my views and have them given a hearing. My job was still on the line on occasion and I can empathise to a degree with the position that those patrol officers were in back in the '50s.
The way to fix the system of course is to have legislators make better policy. That, in turn, requires that the community be better informed about issues and consequences.
Better get on with it.
Thursday 7 February 2008
Much of a Muchness?
For better or worse the presidential election in the USA is importance to Australians. Perhaps not quite as important as it would have been if JWH was still in the seat. We wont necessarily have all of our foreign policy decisions made in Washington any more but the Americans will continue to be our 'close friends'. We will still watch a lot of their TV programs, listen to their music and suck up some of the sillier elements of their culture.
The question then is which one should we support? It might not matter all that much given that we don't have a vote but I shouldn't let that bother you too much - on past form the majority of citizens who have the right to vote wont bother anyway.
Those of us used to the nice little short cut of party politics need to get used to the system in the USA. They do have parties and these parties have broad policy positions but no discipline. Unfortunately, they are so broad as to be pretty much useless as a method of determining a preference, unless your level of interest is pretty basic. If that is what you are after then the most progressive mob are the Democrats and the Republicans (or the GOP) are the right wingers.
For more precise policy positions you need to go to the candidates.
This is where it can get tricky. You would be forgiven for concluding on the basis of most of the coverage that policies are really not what this is all about. Barack is young and black, Hillary is a bit older, white and a woman and John is even older, a Vietnam vet and POW and very long term legislator. It is really all about the race between these three. Their policies aren't apparently all that important. Whether they stumble, speak well, act like leaders and say the right things about God are all important.
In the way in which we sometimes set up tests for others, I have had the view for some time that the USA might just be starting to grow up when it has the courage to elect a black or a woman as President. With Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State there has been the chance that the Republicans could get the double up. That possibility didn't do a lot for my test but I still like the idea that the President may not be an old, white man.
It looks as though there are now three viable candidates - John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I have checked out what seem to be their policies against some criteria of my own.
Propensity for War Mongering
John is the son and grandson of admirals and was a navy man himself. After he experienced a bombing - friendly fire - on an aircraft carrier where over 130 people were killed he said that we wondered whether he should keep dropping these things on the North Vietnamese. He was able to put that view behind him and now supports the Iraq War, jokes about 'Bomb, bomb, bomb - Bomb Bomb Iran' (to the tune of the Beach Boys tune). He suggests that the US could be in Iraq for 100 years.
Barack didn't support the invasion of Iraq - but he generally doesn't mention that he wasn't in the Senate when the decision was taken so didn't have a vote in any case. He wants to get out of Iraq but he doesn't really put up much of a plan for doing so. Curiously, he has said that he would invade Pakistan if it was necessary to get at terrorists.
Hillary voted to allow the invasion of Iraq. She now wants out but her plan for getting out doesn't seem to be much more coherent than Barack's. She does have the benefit of some pretty skillful policy advice on the issue.
Universal Health Care
Millions of people are uninsured with millions more under insured.
John is going to rely on private insurers to do better.
It looks as though Barack is going to require that children be insured, assuming that if they have to insure their children then people will automatically insure themselves. The logic is not strong.
Hillary is looking for a universal system - although hopefully slightly more effective than the one she tried for last time she was in the White House.
Death Penalty
John supports it.
Barack supports it.
Hillary supports it - but she has sponsored a bill that would require positive DNA results for all before execution. Not really the point but it could do some good.
Education
John thinks schools are heading in the wrong direction.
Barack and Hillary are strong on education and are supporters of public education.
Abortion
John has been a long time supporter of Roe v Wade but has recently shifted his position to say that it should be overturned.
Barack is on record as supporting Roe v Wade.
Hillary supports Roe v Wade although she is personally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control.
Firearms
John is rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Barack is rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Hillary rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Commitment to Free Trade
None seem to make any comment that gives a lead.
Experience
John was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and has been a Congressman or Senator ever since. Ran for President in 2000.
Barack was elected to the Senate in 2004.
Hillary was elected to the Senate in 2000. She was in the White House as First Lady for 8 years.
There are many other criteria that could be listed.
I suppose some of their positions say more about the USA than the candidates themselves.
The question then is which one should we support? It might not matter all that much given that we don't have a vote but I shouldn't let that bother you too much - on past form the majority of citizens who have the right to vote wont bother anyway.
Those of us used to the nice little short cut of party politics need to get used to the system in the USA. They do have parties and these parties have broad policy positions but no discipline. Unfortunately, they are so broad as to be pretty much useless as a method of determining a preference, unless your level of interest is pretty basic. If that is what you are after then the most progressive mob are the Democrats and the Republicans (or the GOP) are the right wingers.
For more precise policy positions you need to go to the candidates.
This is where it can get tricky. You would be forgiven for concluding on the basis of most of the coverage that policies are really not what this is all about. Barack is young and black, Hillary is a bit older, white and a woman and John is even older, a Vietnam vet and POW and very long term legislator. It is really all about the race between these three. Their policies aren't apparently all that important. Whether they stumble, speak well, act like leaders and say the right things about God are all important.
In the way in which we sometimes set up tests for others, I have had the view for some time that the USA might just be starting to grow up when it has the courage to elect a black or a woman as President. With Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State there has been the chance that the Republicans could get the double up. That possibility didn't do a lot for my test but I still like the idea that the President may not be an old, white man.
It looks as though there are now three viable candidates - John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I have checked out what seem to be their policies against some criteria of my own.
Propensity for War Mongering
John is the son and grandson of admirals and was a navy man himself. After he experienced a bombing - friendly fire - on an aircraft carrier where over 130 people were killed he said that we wondered whether he should keep dropping these things on the North Vietnamese. He was able to put that view behind him and now supports the Iraq War, jokes about 'Bomb, bomb, bomb - Bomb Bomb Iran' (to the tune of the Beach Boys tune). He suggests that the US could be in Iraq for 100 years.
Barack didn't support the invasion of Iraq - but he generally doesn't mention that he wasn't in the Senate when the decision was taken so didn't have a vote in any case. He wants to get out of Iraq but he doesn't really put up much of a plan for doing so. Curiously, he has said that he would invade Pakistan if it was necessary to get at terrorists.
Hillary voted to allow the invasion of Iraq. She now wants out but her plan for getting out doesn't seem to be much more coherent than Barack's. She does have the benefit of some pretty skillful policy advice on the issue.
Universal Health Care
Millions of people are uninsured with millions more under insured.
John is going to rely on private insurers to do better.
It looks as though Barack is going to require that children be insured, assuming that if they have to insure their children then people will automatically insure themselves. The logic is not strong.
Hillary is looking for a universal system - although hopefully slightly more effective than the one she tried for last time she was in the White House.
Death Penalty
John supports it.
Barack supports it.
Hillary supports it - but she has sponsored a bill that would require positive DNA results for all before execution. Not really the point but it could do some good.
Education
John thinks schools are heading in the wrong direction.
Barack and Hillary are strong on education and are supporters of public education.
Abortion
John has been a long time supporter of Roe v Wade but has recently shifted his position to say that it should be overturned.
Barack is on record as supporting Roe v Wade.
Hillary supports Roe v Wade although she is personally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control.
Firearms
John is rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Barack is rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Hillary rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Commitment to Free Trade
None seem to make any comment that gives a lead.
Experience
John was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and has been a Congressman or Senator ever since. Ran for President in 2000.
Barack was elected to the Senate in 2004.
Hillary was elected to the Senate in 2000. She was in the White House as First Lady for 8 years.
There are many other criteria that could be listed.
I suppose some of their positions say more about the USA than the candidates themselves.
Wednesday 6 February 2008
Back Into the Fray
I have been essentially off the air for the last 6 weeks or so. My computer decided that it was time for a rest. Screen started to flicker uncontrollably. You could still use it - sort of - but it was difficult and even more frustrating.
Over Christmas my technologically aware son decided that he would try a fix by cleaning up the software, that is, to remove everything and reinstall. He did so and it made a bit of a difference for a while. Not for long though and back it came with a vengeance and now some of the keys weren't responding.
My normal method of dealing with equipment that is not working as it ought is to apply mild percussive pressure. If that doesn't work then I might apply substantial percussive pressure. This is a risky business occasionally resulting in the destruction of the device, but it can be satisfying and it occasionally works. I decided on this occasion that I would not use this method. Computers still have me a little bit bluffed.
Off to the computer repair firm. Told me what I knew. Keyboard buggered and screen loose but at least now it was confirmed that it was a hardware issue and now, a month and many phone calls later, I have the computer back and it seems to be fixed.
I have had access to a computer, of course. TWOMD has a nice little lap top but, while very compatible in almost every other way, we are not compatible in terms of computer set up and usage.
Anyway, I am back now although I have developed habits of work that might restrict my time on this machine. Should find a bit though.
Over Christmas my technologically aware son decided that he would try a fix by cleaning up the software, that is, to remove everything and reinstall. He did so and it made a bit of a difference for a while. Not for long though and back it came with a vengeance and now some of the keys weren't responding.
My normal method of dealing with equipment that is not working as it ought is to apply mild percussive pressure. If that doesn't work then I might apply substantial percussive pressure. This is a risky business occasionally resulting in the destruction of the device, but it can be satisfying and it occasionally works. I decided on this occasion that I would not use this method. Computers still have me a little bit bluffed.
Off to the computer repair firm. Told me what I knew. Keyboard buggered and screen loose but at least now it was confirmed that it was a hardware issue and now, a month and many phone calls later, I have the computer back and it seems to be fixed.
I have had access to a computer, of course. TWOMD has a nice little lap top but, while very compatible in almost every other way, we are not compatible in terms of computer set up and usage.
Anyway, I am back now although I have developed habits of work that might restrict my time on this machine. Should find a bit though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)