Mangoman's Mutterings

Travelling the World

2008-10-26T15:50:00.002+09:30

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.

The Right to Know

2008-08-28T13:50:00.004+09:30

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!

How to Bugger It Up

2008-08-16T06:35:00.003+09:30

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:

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.

I talked to a lot of people and very few mentioned law and order or the economy and the only people who talked about Impex were those who wanted to find out what it was or to laugh about calling an election about putting a gas plant in the harbour.

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.

Smoke Gets in Your Eyes

2008-05-09T05:41:00.006+09:30

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.

Bogabilla Economy

2008-03-14T08:19:00.003+09:30

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.

What is it about whales?

2008-02-20T07:05:00.005+09:30

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.

Public Servants Beware

2008-02-10T09:56:00.005+09:30

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.

Much of a Muchness?

2008-02-07T17:35:00.000+09:30

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.

Back Into the Fray

2008-02-06T09:06:00.000+09:30

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.

Bernie. You Were a Hero

2007-11-30T09:09:00.000+09:30

A lot has been written and said about Bernie Banton. I can't add a lot to it. I never met him and take all of my knowledge from what I have seen on TV.

I do know a bit about asbestos though and that gives me some insight into what he took on.

I knew little about the stuff until the early 80's - other than using it as A/C sheeting. Very handy and cheap stuff it was. Chopped it up happily, dust everywhere. No knowledge about danger and took absolutely no care.

In the early 80's I started to hear more about it and of its dangers but this material was routinely dismissed by the industry and all of the 'reputable' scientists of the day. It was important material, there were no effective alternatives and it really wasn't dangerous at all. People only had problems if they were unlucky. You could eat the stuff! I remember seeing photos of people working in situations like Bernie. They were having no problems.

In those days, 1983 to be precise, I played a role in union. Our mob had some grunt in the (then) ACT Trades and Labour Council but we were a public service union and not much used to industrial action.

We received complaints that 'white crap' was falling out of the air conditioning ducts at the National Library but that management wouldn't do anything about it. When we investigated we found that it was 'white' asbestos that had been sprayed into the roof cavity as a fire retardant.

Approached management. The head of the NLA was a very nice man. Distinguished and dependable. But he dealt with books and such, not asbestos spewing out of the roof cavity. Add to that the strong information from just about everyone you could find that asbestos was OK and you will see the difficulty for the NLA. Surely this union was simply being difficult.

At the time we had a brand new ALP government so we had a rather lovely, but naive, view that this might mean that they would listen. So we took the matter up a couple of levels. Didn't work.

Next step was pretty obvious. We couldn't really call a strike and couldn't use bans so we set up a picket. We didn't want to stop the public but we did want to stop services and supplies.

It lasted many, many weeks.

The poor NLA. It must have hurt them deeply. A 24 hour, 7 day a week picket on the two entrances with grubby unionists. A 5 meter scaffold out the front with a massive sign across it saying 'EVEN ONE FIBRE CAN KILL'. Unionists standing around 44 gallon drum fires in the cold Canberra winter.

The industry and their scientific backers came out of their trees. Learned articles complained that we were misleading the public (we may have exaggerated just a tad). Talkback shows were full of people complaining about us. We had Ministers telling us to back off and those of us who were on long term leave without pay from the Commonwealth Public Service received letters telling us that our leave was over and we should immediately return to full time duty or resign.

On the day they decided to break the picket we were ready. We had become used to trucks and vans charging the line and picketers were told to let them go rather than get flattened. But the word was that this particular day they would be both breaking the line and removing the picket.

A chain was provided by the BLF from the site of a new police building. We needed about 25 people to hold the chain across the road. The police came and after the routine directions etc they chopped up the chain, link by link, alongside each hand. They then arrested the picketers. We brought in more. They arrested or moved on the new picketers. We brought in more. And so it went on.

Over 200 public servants were on the line that day. None were charged. The picket continued.

Finally, a deal was done. Nine Ministers represented the Commonwealth Government. The world changed. Asbestos was removed wherever it was in an unsafe condition under strict guidelines. Programs were established and funding was provided.

This was a tough and difficult time but, to be honest, it was pretty exciting until the day I watched an old bloke be helped out of car near the union office.

He was so decrepit that it took him ages to get across the lawn to the building. Eventually, the receptionist told me that there was someone to see me. Turned out that he wasn't a particularly old bloke but rather a bloke that was just about at his end. He had worked on the Australian War Memorial where they sprayed blue asbestos under that big copper dome. He had mesothelioma. He made the journey just to shake the hands of people who were having a go.

It appalls me that 25 years after that fight it was necessary for Bernie Banton to fight for compensation. But I remember the strength and savagery of those who supported the industry and I guess that they were never going to give up easily or after just one battle.

People like Bernie are vital for a strong country. Someone who was prepared to take on a major international company that had honed its skills fighting the asbestos fight over the last 30 years. In the end their political friends deserted them and the scientific community came to its senses but, without a Bernie, most of the people who are suffering and will suffer would have quietly died without recognition or compensation.

Bernie is receiving a lot accolades. He deserves every one but most of all he did not deserve to die just because he went to work

A Class Act

2007-11-26T14:01:00.000+09:30

It seemed that there would never be an ALP government in the Northern Territory. The CLP were there for 27 years - for 4 years before self government and the rest after. Incumbency in the Territory with small electorates is a powerful thing.

The CLP used the self-government package well to ensure its future. Of course, it ignored the bush but then most of the blackfellas didn't vote for them anyway. It was just a bit surprising that the CLP lost track but, when the rot set in and became obvious to all, Clare Martin was there to make them pay.

The first ALP victory in the Territory was no easy or assured thing. It took a centrist leader who could relate to people, who could convince them that there was another option, was not too frightening and who could possibly make the Territory a better place.

We needed someone who could take on the CLP and win. Clare did it and she did it where many had failed before her.

Clare took over as Chief Minister when unemployment was growing, the NT economy was dying, infrastructure spending had stopped, there was no secondary school in any Indigenous community and much, much more money was spent on fighting land claims than on supporting Indigenous enterprises. She took over a public service that had lost its enthusiasm for the task and where good governance was not given priority.

In government, Clare, and her deputy Syd Stirling, have led a government that has been careful and centrist. It has worked hard to support and build the economy using the well tried formula of getting cranes onto the skyline and mines into the ground. Unemployment is at very low levels, gas is now on-shore and the place is booming.

In social terms we are now a different place. We are no longer automatically regarded as red neck or racist. We have more Indigenous MLAs than any other parliament and now have a female Deputy Chief Minister. Who would have thought that could happen before Clare?

Social policy advances have not matched those in the economic area. The Government has struggled, I believe, to deal effectively with the law and order issue. Allegations that crime is on the increase are rubbish but the perception that things are getting worse are growing. It has taken a long time to deal with issues of alcohol and substance abuse, although recent moves appear to be in the right direction. It started out well on local government reform but has become frustrated and is now making a mess of the area (but then I am by no means a disinterested observer on this one).

The Indigenous area is one where Clare has been lambasted. The criticisms have been very unfair. She had the courage to take on the job as Minister for Indigenous Affairs and to continue with it. Any Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the Territory is on a hiding to nothing. You simply cannot win. Clare could have given it to one of her Indigenous Ministers but that would have simply meant that she was painting a target on them. Clare was always a Minister who gave strong support to any sensible proposal for changes to Indigenous policy. Her reactions and judgement were good and she had the courage to carry through on decisions.

When she came in Clare inherited a public service that both desperately wanted a new government but where some key individuals wondered whether they would survive. She guaranteed public servants their jobs, calmed them down and has worked with them ever since.

As a long time professional public servant, it pains me to say it but it could have been a different world if Clare had followed up on her removal of the (then) head of the Department of Justice with the removal of a few others. By removing the blockers and self servers she could have sent a message to all that it truly was a different world and that she wanted advice on both what she should do to make a change and how that could be done. Instead, after an initial period where the public service tried to do the job that seemed to be required, enthusiasm waned as the blockers continued to operate and the self servers prospered.

Clare was not perfect but she was just about the only way that the ALP was going to get through the CLP stranglehold. She has changed the Territory from a red neck, racist place to one where we are still optimistic and happy to have a go but where we now better recognise the value that our cultlural diversity brings.

It is often the little things that stand out. For me, two instances define Clare Martin's Chief Ministership.

Not long after she was installed the long time CEO of a major agency was pulling the pin. He was 60 and, in going that day, he was carrying out a decision he had made when he was 18. On the day of his departure a car pulled up in front of the building. Out came the CM with a bunch of flowers. She simply walked in, handed them over, gave him a kiss on the cheek, said thanks and left. Absolutely no fanfare - nothing. If she hadn't already won every vote in the department then that day she won the rest.

Many years later at Wadeye shortly after a series of well publicised riots, the CM visited to see for herself what was going on. She had appointed a Coordinator to pull together a whole of government response and develop a plan to try to ensure that this never happened again.

At the airport on that day she didn't climb into a car to travel around the community. Instead, to the concern of some of her advisors, she agreed with the idea that she walk. She visited all key locations, including the house where a major gang was headquartered.

Unfortunately, while the place was settled down and the community engaged in the development of a plan that was negotiated through the bureaucracy, much of it didn't hit the ground and Wadeye has recently exploded again.

Clare is a person with good judgement, excellent reactions and great courage. She has not been well served at all times by her advisors and public service. Perhaps if she had been just a little more ruthless she would have had more success - but then she may not have been so good.

I am sorry to see Clare go. She will be remembered with affection by most.

Not another 1961 please

2007-11-19T18:15:00.000+09:30

It is that time in an election campaign when those closely involved are in the zone. Totally focused on not putting a foot wrong until THE DAY. Keeping those things that are going wrong to a minimum. Dealing with the daily disasters so they sound ok to everyone else and, above all, holding the line.

For those of us who are interested but not insiders it is a tough time. We think it looks good. We read all of the polls, examine all of the analysis, nervously watch the leaders for signs of panic/ disappointment/worry etc etc. It all looks good but we know it can all go very bad and get very sad, very quickly.

It may be just a case of too many scars but they were nasty ones.

Take 1969 for instance. Election late in the year - 25 October.

The previous election in 1966 was the 'khaki' election. ALP slaughtered - Holt the PM - and we were in Vietnam for the long haul. But by 1969 it was all different. The protests against the war had kicked in and I couldn't see why anyone would think it was a good idea to keep a government that was keeping us in a war like this. I also took extreme umbrage at being told to register for conscription before I had the chance to have a vote.

The Libs campaign was all about '17 Faceless Men' who ran the ALP. Union bosses telling Gough and Lance what to do and neither of them were even on the Fed Executive of the ALP. Lovely photo of Gough outside the door. All sounded pretty silly stuff as far as I was concerned. I mean as if an unelected group could tell a representative government what to do. I was young.

The ALP needed to win about 25 seats. It didn't. It did win 18 and it did get a swing of just under 7% across the nation. One of the great victories of all time.

That is, it was a victory if you really didn't expect to win, you were really interested in numbers and you were closely in touch with reality.

I was none of the above and found the whole exercise to be one of the most depressing experiences of my life.

1969 followed 20 years of conservative rule.

The thing that worries me is that the closest the conservatives came to being turfed out during the Menzies/Holt era was in 1961. Menzies was returned but only with the help of some preferences - from the Communist Party I think - for Jim Killen in Moreton. In the unkindest cut of all the ALP actually won the same number of seats as the conservatives but two were in the ACT and NT and these members didn't have full voting rights in those days. The ALP received many more votes than the LNP overall.

What makes me nervous is that they made it with 130 dodgy preferences in 1961 and we had another 11 years of them with the Vietnam war, conscription and the continuation of 1930s and 40s ideas and policies.

It doesn't look like it will happen again. It can't can it?

Quietly sitting at the lights ...

2007-10-19T08:50:00.000+09:30

... in the ute the other day waiting for the traffic to take off from the Berrimah lights up the Highway (there is only one). I was heading for Berrimah so was side on to the traffic.

Nothing special about the line up - bike, couple of cars and a truck or two.

Lights change and, with a high pitched whirrrr, definitely not a roar, the bike took off. It was through the lights before anyone else had left the grid. No wheelspin, no dramatics, just mega acceleration.

And it was a woman - I think. Leathers and helmet made it difficult to tell but the flat, girlie type shoes were a give away.

I cheered and clapped. Looked left and right and the people on either side of me were doing the same. All joined in the appreciation of a great demonstration of power.

I know, I know. She probably broke the law, she wasn't being fuel efficient and she could possibly have caused an accident if someone had pulled around the corner expecting her to be slower.

But it was still great to see.

Maybe I am heading back to my second childhood and have hit the adolescent bit?

The Eagle Has Landed

2007-10-11T16:30:00.000+09:30

Judd to the Blues!!!!!

Wahoooo!!!!!!

Actually he should always have been playing for them. Best player in the best team and all of that. Bring on the next season

A Morning's Work

2007-10-11T10:33:00.000+09:30

You need a plan. Without a plan you spend a lot of time doing things that are not useful, not a high priority or not in the most efficient sequence.

The plan this morning was to spray some foliar fertiliser on to the citrus. This would allow me to cover the whole orchard area of about 2.5 ha before about 9.30 and before the breeze picks up. On completing that and washing out the spray tank it would be about 10.00 and I would spend the next couple of hours connecting and shifting equipment into the shed. (This is the new shed. The one that I have just spent a month or so building. Thing of beauty!) After lunch it is into research on animal welfare.

A nicely planned day that ensures that I get the spray out before the temperature rises to above 30 degrees. After this it could burn the leaves. It will be on 30 degrees by about 10.00. And I am either around the shed or on the front veranda when the temp gets over 35.

Rear tyre on the tractor has a slow leak. No worries. Whack a bit of air in. Compressor - reliable and used all the time - gives a strange whirr and dies. Check all of the bits - oil, air intakes and filters, lines - all seem clean. Fire it up again. Blows the overload switch. Another look. Nothing obvious. Spray some WD40 about. Electric motor seems to be working OK. Internals are something I know nothing about. May be about to learn.

Anyway, is the tyre that far down? Maybe not. Let's go.

Tractor needs some fuel. No problem. Put 40 litres in. Start it to drive out of the shed (new, very nice shed that is) and the power steering is tight. Will need to do a lot of tight turns at row ends so better put some more fluid in the reservoir. Nuisance of a job. Hard to get at the filler and the thread is dodgy on the filler screw. Have to keep the tractor going and reach in past the fan.

Attach the spray unit. Needs to be carefully lined up because it is difficult to shift if you get it wrong. Very heavy. Got it wrong twice but eventually in place.

Fertiliser is all nicely stacked in its new home in the new shed so don't have to hunt around for that. Fill the tank and mix everything in. Nice organic fertiliser. Smells good and tastes OK - although I didn't really mean to have my mouth open when the splash hit me in the face.

Off we go. Not too bad on the time but may only get one load out before it heats up. No cloud and warming up fast.

First row, sprayer on, all the right noises - nothing. Not a sausage. Nothing coming out of any of the nozzles. Quick check of the basics. All working - or seem to be - but there is nothing coming out. A more serious issue?

Now I have a situation.

440 litres of nicely mixed, organic fertiliser all ready to go. The thing is that, if you let it settle, it can be a problem. The little solids all get together and form a sort of gel that provides a nice gluggy mass on the bottom of the tank. The tank is hard to clean. You have to get your head and shoulders inside with you ending up with your legs sticking out. Most undignified and very difficult to extricate oneself. Also a bit uncomfortable. Small children could do it. Pop them in and only let them out when it is clean. Can't find one.

Check the filters I know about and they are clean. I am going to have to start to pull things apart so I need to empty the tank. Find a 200 litre tank. There is a 75 litre tank on the back of the quad. The rest goes into 20 litre buckets. I have no idea how I will move it back into the spray tank. Siphon? Doesn't taste that good. Lift the 200 litre tank? Difficult but not impossible when you have a tractor that is a precision instrument.

Time has beaten me. Too hot and too late. Will have to happen tomorrow but I have meetings in town tomorrow - so Saturday or Sunday. I will be popular. I like the smell, my neighbours might not. Monday another appointment. Maybe Tuesday.

I will do the job properly. Take the unit off the tractor. Put it in the (lovely new) shed where it will be in the shade and start to pull it to pieces.

All nicely in place to come off, everything comes apart as it is supposed - except the power shaft. Wont move. For some reason it is jammed on significantly further up the spindle than it is supposed to be. Try a small lever to shift it back. Wont move. A bigger lever. A hammer. A crow bar. That shifted it. Finally off.

Now was that part of the problem? Don't know.

Phone ringing. Message bank picks up. Rings again. Must be important. Trek to the house. Message to call real estate agent about a rental property. A prospective tenant has decided not to move in so would we like to go to the next on the list? No - forget it, we will take it off the market. If they don't want it then no one can have it.

Now getting angry and cursing is not sensible. Doesn't get you anywhere. So answer sensibly and as if this was a reasonable question.

Phone rings again. Dive back up the stairs, race for the phone. Don't make it and no message. Rings again and this time I get there.

It is not her fault that she works for these people so it is not right that I should abuse her for wasting my time. So I simply tell her that if I want the product I will go to the shop and buy one but that I have a policy of banning any product or firm that rings me without my request.

Back to the plan.

Shifting equipment into the shed is going to increase its working life by reducing the effect of weather and allowing easier maintenance - and with me there is a direct relationship between ease and frequency.

The shifting involves connecting the items to the tractor and moving them into the shed, placing them on stands that allow one to connect them easily next time. Pretty straightforward.

And it was - pretty well anyway.

And I worked out what was wrong with the compressor. Found a drain plug that I had never located before and opened it - when in doubt pull it apart. Out came a lot of water obviously built up over time. I then checked the book to see if I had missed doing something that I should have been taking care of over time. Nothing in the book so I am both vindicated and just a little dirty on the suppliers for not telling me about it - not that I would have necessarily checked.

I haven't fixed the spray unit though. Had a look and a poke about but couldn't see anything that was going to be in any way straightforward so I decided to leave it for a day or two.

If I fix it over the weekend I will have TWOMD to help me. She can .... hold things and such I guess.

Do They Think We Are That Stupid?

2007-10-10T11:20:00.000+09:30

Are we a reflection of the media or is the media a reflection of us?

Put another way - are we as stupid as they think we are or are they?

We are being treated like fools again over this issue of the death penalty for the Bali bombers.

Both major parties have long standing policies against the death penalty. Both major parties hold the basic principle of equal rights for all. Australia signed the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1949 and has since confirmed that view many times.

Somehow there are those, possibly in both parties but certainly in the Liberal/National Parties, who are able to ignore logic and principle and agree that the knocking off certain people is OK.

Now I am confused. Does that mean that it is OK to kill people or not? Is it OK to kill people, for instance:

if they are in another country?
if they are in another country and are not Australian?
if they are in another country and have killed Australians?

Does that mean that just killing Australians is bad? How does that fit with our long standing, bi-partisan national position?

There doesn't seem to me to anything terribly complex or difficult about putting such questions but, faced with politicians running obvious lines, the media have ignored logic and gone completely to the so-called 'populist' position. They are running Alexander Downer's lines as if they mean something, not putting obvious questions to John Howard and gleefully tearing into Robert McClelland as somehow incompetent for stating the bleeding obvious.

Maybe we are fools. If we let the media get away with this sort of rubbish over and over again then it is arguably so.

A Thousand Splendid Suns

2007-10-08T18:14:00.000+09:30

Khaled Hosseini has written two books that I have read. 'The Kite Runner' was a heart warming story set around a boy growing up in Afghanistan. A well written, well told story that gave me a very different view of Afghanis and of life there than the one that is normally provided by the media.

I have just finished the second book "A Thousand Splendid Suns". Actually, I finished it very early on Saturday morning on a plane from Darwin to Brisbane.

This book may not have the depth of 'The Kite Runner" but it had a more powerful effect on me.

The story centres around two women. Mariam is an harami, or bastard. This is definitely not a term of endearment. She is caused to marry a man many years her senior when she is 15. It starts out better than you might expect but heads down the reasonably obvious path pretty quickly.

Laila joins the household some years later. The relationship between the two women has a very rocky beginning but grows.

All the while the misery that is recent Afghan politics swims around the household. The Soviets come almost as saviours and go. The mujahadeen arrive as saviours and fall into tribal disarray soon after with terrible results for the population. The Taliban arrive as saviours and, again, soon deliver a continuing disaster for most of the population.

Don't be concerned though that this is a heavy, political book. It is, but it doesn't feel like one. We are taken into the household. We are given an insight into the reality of life. It is tough in parts but by no means without hope and there is plenty of light and love.

I have been told - by someone smarter than me - that the concluding parts could seem a little contrived but I have exercised my right to disagree, just a little.

The characters were able to get under my skin. I felt for Mariam and could empathise with the hard headed decisions of Laila. I can't say that I really understood Rasheed but I could understand some of why he might be as he was. The weakness of Jalil is something with which we are all probably familiar as we are with the bitterness of Nana.

If you read it for no other reason than that you would like a good story then you wont be disappointed. If you want to put a human face to the decisions that refugees actually have to make you will enjoy it more.

And for the young bloke in the nearby seat on the flight from Darwin to Brisbane - that old bloke had tears running down his face because some things in life make you both angry and sad and deserve a tear or two.

The Other Kevin

2007-10-04T18:12:00.000+09:30

Our school bus used to bring kids from the valley up to town winding around bush roads for about 30 kms on the way to pick up the kids from Reidsdale who, for some reason, were allowed on to the Araluen bus.

There were no Catholics from Araluen. I have no idea why not. But there were a few from Reidsdale. Not many though. We gave them a terrible time. All dressed up in their neat uniforms with their neat haircuts they were a lot of fun for the public school kids.

Whenever I see Kevin Andrews on TV I am reminded of excessively neat, prissy, hidebound, righteous school kids who seemed to look down their noses at everyone else secure in their knowledge that they knew what is best for everyone else and had the right to tell them.

Outside of school and the bus, those Catholic kids were actually reasonable people and we got on pretty well. And it turned out they were not always neat. They also grew up.

Unfortunately for Kevin Andrews, he never did grow up. He clearly still thinks that he has the right to make judgements for everyone else. He did it in his sponsorship of the legislation to overrule the NT Rights of the Terminally Ill. He was not concerned that the ROTI legislation was introduced and passed only after a long and pretty well informed debate. He simply knew that he was right so he introduced the bill to overrule.

As Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations he stayed true to form. He was so bad, so uncaring and so completely sycophantic to big business that, eventually, even John Howard had to shift him.

Now, where do you put someone like this? Knows he is right, has no feeling for people and knows he is better than everyone else. Immigration! What a perfect fit - that is, if you want to run an immigration policy that ensures that anyone who comes here is properly grateful and if you want to keep out anyone who is not neat.

I saw the interview with Dr Haneef the other night on Four Corners. I guess he could be a terrorist but, to me, he just looked like a young, keen, slightly naive doctor who embodied the hope of his family and gave them some financial security.

Kevin Andrews had the advantage over me - and everyone else. He has seen all of the information that we were given on Four Corners, read all of the transcripts and all of the analysis. Unless there is something that is not yet even hinted at, Kevin Andrews formed a view of Dr Haneef's character that is totally at odds with all of the information available.

You would expect him to do so though because he is, after all, right. He has a capacity to see through the reality to the darkness behind.

Now Kevin Andrews has decided to get stuck into those terrible Sudanese. The kid who was bashed to death in Melbourne brought it all on himself because he 'failed to integrate'. We should stop them coming here because they are from a war torn country and it takes them a while to learn how to live in a peaceful, compassionate country. So don't let them come here. Keep them where they are until they learn how to live peacefully. We are not the sort of country to give anyone a chance.

Kooyong is as safe a seat as the Liberals hold. Kevin Andrews will be there, I expect, for as long as he wants to be. Let us hope that, for the good of us all, he is restricted to fulminating on morality and righteousness from the Opposition benches for the rest of his political career.

Thirty!!!

2007-10-04T13:59:00.000+09:30

How about that? My son turns 30 today - or, more precisely, he turned 30 very early this morning. I can't remember the exact time but his mother will.

Amazing thing it was welcoming this new son into the world. It was the first time for me - and for him for that matter.

I clearly recall walking out of the hospital - the old one in Canberra that has now been blown up -and getting into the car. The news came on the radio and I was very surprised that the first item was not about the birth of this new baby boy - seriously.

Over the next few days I came to understand why people often carry on about the birth of babies, gooing over them, congratulating the parents and generally being very chuffed about the state of the world. I wandered about with my chest puffed out as if I had actually done something special.

Which of course I had.

My son has made it to 30 as a competent, confident person. He will go on from here making his own decisions and his own life.

We got him started and I am pretty proud that we did.

Feet of Clay??

2007-09-25T13:39:00.000+09:30

I knew Bob Collins.

I had to brief him once when he was Opposition Leader in the NT on a new piece of legislation. Over 500 sections and relatively complex stuff. There was a hole in it but it had been pretty well disguised. Handed the Bill to Bob and he started flicking through it while I started the spiel. He was respectful, waited till I drew breath and then hit me with the question. Nailed me to the wall. Luckily, he agreed that we were trying to do the right thing and never raised the question again. No one else ever spotted the problem.

Driving down the highway one morning saw a Landcruiser pull up on the side of the road. Bob jumped out and headed into the bush. I thought he must have been caught short but not this time. He had spotted a bloke laying there. Turned out to be a drunk who had been trying to walk home. Bob loaded him into his vehicle. A lot of other people had passed the spot before Bob arrived.

I know some of those who accused Bob.

I wouldn't feed them bad meat.

Bob may have had feet of clay. I do know that he often developed a yearning for pizzas and champagne often late at night. His self control where food was concerned was not always evident. Did he also succumb to a yearning for young boys. I don't know and now we will never know.

He was a good man who did a lot of good. A lot of good people have feet of clay. Doesn't mean that they weren't good.

A Shed Raising

2007-09-17T21:11:00.000+09:30

Any afficionado of Louis L'Amour books, people who know about the practices of the early settlements in the USA and Canada and people who watch movies about Mennonites and the Amish will know what I am talking about.

Someone decides to build a barn - in my case a shed. On the appointed day people come from everywhere and every one gets into it and either builds the shed or feeds the people who build the shed. Every one has a great time. The shed goes up and they all go home again feeling that very nice sense of community. Importantly, no one gets shot at a barn raising.

My Shed Raising happened on the weekend. Because we live a bit of distance from their residences the work gang arrived on Friday night complete with many pizzas and the occasional bottle of beer and red wine. The plan was to commence work at pretty close to first light and, as happens with good plans, we were at it at pretty close to first light.

The first portal frame was already in place and there were another 5 that had been constructed and packed in a careful pile near the construction site.

Raising the first portal frame had been a difficult job. It was built in 3 different ways and raised 3 times. Without spending too much time on it I should note that the first 2 attempts were successful in the achievement of an outcome of raising a portal frame but not successful in that the frame would not have held up its required element of a shed. The 3rd attempt had worked though and it stood supreme as a starting point. It took some weeks, much cursing, a couple of hits on the head (mine) with bracing and a bit of panel beating. Of course, it did only take one person.

The remaining 5 portal frames are now in place. Not only are they in place, they are held in place by foundations that were almost all (29 of 32) in precisely the right place, they are bound together by roof purlins and most also have eave purlins binding them together.

I trust this doesn't sound like an easy or insignificant achievement.

Each portal frame is constructed of columns, rafters, haunch brackets, an apex bracket, knee braces, an apex brace and lots of nuts and bolts etc. They are heavy and difficult to handle. They must arrive in their appointed position in as close to the state in which they leave their home on the ground. If they don't - if they go out of square - they will not fit the foundations and it will be impossible to get the rest of the frame or cladding to fit. Our team was able to raise the portal frames with only a little help on occasion from the tractor (yet again being used as a precision instrument).

All of this was done in 35 degree heat and 60% humidity.

The best teams are those who are fed well and we were. Liquid to replenish that which had been lost in the heat was required and consumed. We probably also replenished some extra.

Injuries? None that I know of. There were one or two almosts. Bracing came down pretty close to one head. Things occasionally became a little tense when the pressure was really on and those bloody frames were neither up nor down. But we came through and are still friends.

Amazingly for me everything fitted together. I had spent a lot of time on those foundations. Measuring, digging, cutting and welding structures and mixing concrete (almost 5 meters). I have complete faith that they will never leave the ground in the worst of cyclonic winds but none whatsoever that they would be in precisely the right place. One test was whether we could get the purlins on. Towards the end one did not fit, looked a long way out but a swing of the hips by our Amazon and, presto, the frame moved smartly into position.

So now it remains to put up the rest of the frame - the easy bits - and to clad it. I intend to finish this well before mango season - this week if I can.

What a birthday present eh?

Oh and I did find an extra 16/18mm ring spanner, an 18/16 open ender and a shirt that were not included in the tools that were intentionally left behind. I will return them.

And no one was shot.

Crook Foot

2007-09-12T08:26:00.001+09:30

You should always look for the positives they say. Well my foot - and ankle - is bloody sore and I find it difficult to walk around too much. Can't get a boot on and this makes it less than safe to work on my building site (although I am not really sure why I should worry about a foot that is being such a nuisance.)

Read a book yesterday. I read a lot of books but, unfortunately rarely get a chance to read one all at once. The one I read yesterday is one that I didn't really want to finish - wanted to savour it - but one that I couldn't put down.

I am not normally inspired to read books by reviewers. This book "The Broken Shore" by Peter Temple was reviewed on the ABC Book Club program. They raved about it. I spotted it in a shop and bought it on spec. It is a beauty. The reviewers were right - and I should learn not to dismiss all reviewers as wankers.

I do enjoy crime novels and 'The Broken Shore" does fit into that category. It is a good crime novel. A better than average plot. Some good twists and excellent pace. But the crime is not the point with this book.

Peter Temple uses a technique that sometimes works well and it does in this case. He does not lead in with a detailed establishment of the scene, no obvious setting of the context and no detailed character development. Instead you move into the events with the characters and context being built as these events proceed.

But the events are quickly overtaken by the characters and the context. Temple describes the area, somewhere on the southern Victorian coast, in a way that you can feel, without actually spending too much time doing so. You meet his two dogs and you know them. His hero, Joe Cashin, is flawed and pretty much buggered, but you don't find out why until it comes up in the context of the story.

The story is like moving into an area and gradually getting to know the place and the people in it. There is a gradual process of revelation as there is in any new place. In this case we have the assistance of a bloke who has lived here before and can fill in some of the history.

An excellent book, whether or not you like crime novels.

Bugger!

2007-09-10T07:58:00.000+09:30

I am not spectacularly good at seeking or accepting help. I am not sure why this is the case but there you go.

My shed has been waiting quietly for 3 years to be built. This is a good sized shed in a kit. To build it you need to put together portal frames and then lift them into position on the pre-prepared footings. Everyone who has put one of these sheds together tells me that precision is essential and that, if you are able to be precise at each step, the shed will go together pretty well.

The foundations are done. Took a while but there were other things to do along the way. One of the most difficult portal frames is in place. Looks a lot bigger than I expected. The second (of a total of 6) has been constructed but I have not yet found away to get it into place. My neighbour is very keen to give me a hand. Two others have offered to help.

One technique I have used to some effect is to use my tractor as a lifting tool. Unfortunately, tractors are not really all that good as precision instruments and it has been difficult to achieve the necessary level of accuracy.

Anyway these wonderful friends of ours have made a decision that they are coming down to help. This is to be my birthday present and one of the best I reckon. A job that I would struggle for a couple of weeks on could conceivably be done in a day or so.

To achieve the best benefit I need to put the frames together before they get here. There is a week or so in that job.

So, yesterday I was getting into it. Needed to clear a bit of ground to allow me to lay out the frames. Stepped off the tractor as I have a thousand times before. Sprained my ankle. Can't walk too well.

Bugger!!!!

It is a Sin

2007-09-09T11:26:00.000+09:30

Graham Richardson used to say that you do 'whatever it takes' to win an election. It looks a lot like John Howard and Kevin Rudd agree.

Howard has shown he will give 'non-core' commitments. Rudd has perfected the 'me too' art, winking at Labor policy which might not always fit precisely.

I am not averse to the view that you do what you have to in order to win. I have run and worked in campaigns where we have done things that have gone pretty close to the bone. Vote early, vote often was useful once - very useful. 'Bin teams' did a top job in another. Dirt Committees are a feature of most campaign teams, even if no one normally admits it.

But there are rules, places you don't go. For me the most important has been that you don't use people unless they know about it and agree.

I know that it is dangerous to require that everyone else follow your principles but I make an exception for this one. It really gets up my nose when I see political campaigns using people without their consent.

A lot of people suspected that Howard and Brough were not serious about saving the Indigenous children from sexual abuse in the NT, but many have been prepared to go along because it was clear to everyone that something needed to be done.

We are now starting to see the results. Brough says that $500million will be spent. In briefings to senior people in organisations it is now becoming clear that the majority of this is 're-badged' money. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much 'new' money at all. The money seems to be flowing from programs that funded services back into administration - high priced administrators who are often new and inexperienced.

New money is coming in but a lot of it seems to be coming from the Aboriginal Benefits Account. This is the money that is the royalty equivalent for mining on Aboriginal Land. The committee that does the distribution is being asked to deliver the funds to the Federal agenda rather than projects that the committee might see as useful.

I am told that over 1,300 children have had the medical checks so far and that 73 communities have been surveyed. No case of sexual abuse or suspected sexual abuse has been located yet. Four kids have been referred to Family and Children's Services for follow up.

Brough talked about new houses as a major component of the effort to be made. New houses were promised for people who went along with the Federal agenda. Now they are being told that the houses wont actually be 'new'. They will actually be current houses that are refurbished and repainted. The Fed officers are telling organisations that, when people have demonstrated that they can live properly in these houses, then they might get new ones.

The estimated cost of each refurb and repaint will be $20-30,000. They obviously have a really good manager because when I was running Indigenous Housing we normally worked on about $40,000 for a similar job. The saving is apparently going to come from the squads of volunteers coming up from down South to help.

CDEP is being dismantled. The 8,300 people who were 'employed' on CDEP and achieved some dignity as a result - for being paid a little over what they would have received on Newstart - will all lose their jobs. At this stage it looks as if less than 1,000 will find 'proper jobs.

Brough and his off siders are blaming the Territory, Indigenous organisations and the non-government organisations for failing to put in the effort.

It is increasingly clear that it is all a con job and that has every sign of turning into a massive stuff up but a lot of people still want to hope that good will come. After all it has been possible to get some good out of other similar, if less dramatic, exercises.

Howard and Brough have committed a sin. They are using people for their own electoral ends and causing pain to people who have limited avenue for complaint. They deserve what the polls are telling us is on the way for them.

Headed in the Right Direction?

2007-09-04T13:54:00.000+09:30

The mantra for Government Ministers and many of the commentariat for some time has been the line that 'The country is headed in the right direction and eventually the voters will realise this and come back to the government".

Alexander Downer made the comment again last night on Lateline and Tony Abbot repeated it today in interviews about the latest poll results.

It is highly unlikely that anyone from the LNP campaign team will read this blog but an old mate of mine, Peter Conran, is a key Howard advisor and I used to work in the same small building as Mark Textor - before he became a super hero - so I feel just a tiny bit of an obligation to let them know that they have it wrong.

I like being proud to be Australian. I don't like it when my government makes me ashamed. I am ashamed of our laws about immigration and refugees and have been ashamed for a long time.

I believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, notwithstanding their race, religion or beliefs. We are not headed in the right direction when we treat Indigenous Territorians as pawns in a ham fisted attempt at wedge politics.

I felt good about our respect for other cultures and out embrace of multi culturalism. It is not right for our government on our behalf to use dog whistle messages to sanction abuse of Muslims or any other group.

A sensible economic strategy for individuals, businesses and governments in good times is to both address outstanding requirements and set yourself up for the future. This means that priority should have been being given to issues, say, like public housing for Indigenous people (the $2billion necessary would scarcely cause a blip in the surplus), up-grading transport infrastructure, making child care an affordable right for everyone and ensuring greater access for all to the whole education system. Instead, we have some money put away and the rest put into an election war chest.

And also on economic management we are not headed in the right direction if the level of government with the money is not effectively shifting that money in reasonable amounts to the places where it is needed for services. I know the GST con worked on most of the States and I could accept you having a bit of a giggle at their expense but there comes the time when you need to address the financial imbalance issue. Your job that one and it has not been done well.

Climate change is, and has been an issue known to governments for many years. For crying out loud I attended national meetings on greenhouse in the early 90's. We knew well how serious it was then. (You remember Peter. You sent me.) Our government is not headed in the right direction if it ignores issues of importance because there are some who wont like the solutions.

The list could go on but I don't really have the time.

You need to know that this is just me. Others will have different views. Unfortunately for you there could be a lot of views but at least if you address mine you will make a start.

On second thoughts don't bother. You have left it too late.

Happy Birthday

2007-08-29T10:44:00.000+09:30

I reckon that my mum would have loved the blogosphere. As the family communicator she took on the responsibility of writing to those of her children who were away from 'home', that is, where Mum was, once a week, on a Monday.

This practice started when someone left 'home'. I think it probably started when my older sister went off to boarding school. It certainly carried on when my little brother who left initially for Melbourne and then went to work in London. The practice expanded when one sister went to live in Canada and, again when another went to live in Washington. It continued when my family went off to live in the Top End.

We bought Mum a computer in her later years so that she could email 'the letter'. It worked sometimes. She had problems with the way the computer worked - it was different from the typewriters she had spent 50 years working with. But I have no doubt that, perhaps if she had been introduced a little earlier and particularly if she had been able to blog, she would have loved it and would have found a great way to give and get news of the family.

I guess that Mum found it difficult on many Mondays trying to think of something to tell those of us that were away from the centre of the family. At times she apologised for a letter being a 'poor effort' but the letters always arrived and were always read with interest. Every now and then I would reply. That would give Mum something to say in her next letter, carefully answering everything that I had said.

I don't know whether there is anything that follows this life but I do know that something has followed my Mum's life. She lives on in our memories, some of our habits and probably more of our beliefs than we know.

'Everybody is equal. You are no better than anyone else - and no one is any better than you.' 'A smile costs nothing.' And every time I find that I have been chewing my bloody tongue. The list could go on and on.

Today would have been my Mum's birthday.

Australians All

2007-08-28T11:04:00.000+09:30

I took the chance to read the booklet that has been issued by the Commonwealth Government on being an Australian last night. I have to say that, in my opinion, it is reasonably well written and will provide some people with a statement that will allow them to feel that, yes, they are right.

Of course, there are bits of the booklet that jar and bits that I believe are sure to draw criticism from significant parts of the community. At one point there is a comment made about those who pioneered the land, white people that is, or rather white men. Women were recognised though. They were the ones who stepped in when the men died or needed some help.

In another area the writers mention the '8 hour day' campaign. They speak approvingly of the principle of '8 hours work, 8 hours leisure, 8 hours sleep'. Strange that there is no mention, not even a hint, of the battle fought by the union movement with the employers and the government of the day to achieve the acceptance of this principle.

Indigenous people get a number or mentions, although I suspect that they will find it hard to accept that the analysis provided is as complete as they might reasonably believe it should be. There is, for instance, no suggestion that the policy of removal of mixed race babies from their mothers - which operated for over 30 years - was done in pursuance of a rascist policy even though there is mention made of the rascist nature of the White Australia Policy when discussing early Chinese migration - without mentioning the name of that policy.

For me, the point is not that this is a poor document - it isn't too bad - but that it tries to achieve something that is both unnecessary and impossible.

I am an Australian. Born here and so was my father and grandfather. In fact I can go back almost 200 years to when the first of my forebears arrived here. It wasn't his choice. He was expelled for life from his homeland. My mum wasn't born here. She was proudly a 'British citizen' and the holder of a Canadian passport - and, an Australian one as well. Nor was TWOMD born here but she holds an Australian passport.

I don't think I would have any difficulty explaining to a new arrival what it means to be an Australian from my perspective. I suspect that there would be similarities to the way my mother or wife would discuss the same subject but I am equally convinced that it wouldn't be the same explanation.

My neighbour on one side is a proud Greek - spray painted his fence blue and white when Greece won the European Cup. He is no less an Australian though - and seen as no less an Australian - than the Aboriginal bloke who is my neighbour on the other side, or me for that matter.

What good comes from trying to set out in one set of words from one perspective what it means to be an Australian when we are a mixed bunch and when we owe most of our shared values to the fact that we are a mixed bunch and that we have developed ways of generally getting on together.

There are a couple of reasons for the production of this booklet. It may be that some are worried that they are no longer really seen as Australian, or perhaps they don't like being called 'skips' by the newer arrivals. Perhaps some are trying to create a barrier that all must pass through and, by doing so, are somehow turned into true blue Australians who forget where they came from. Maybe some just need some statement that gives them some security.

It worries me though that this exercise is about an attempt to engender a greater sense of nationalism and this is a much more serious issue. Nationalism is a step too far along the road to fascism for me.

I am as proudly patriotic as anyone. I will cheer Australian teams and individuals when they take on the world. I am proud of the achievements of Australians and have been proud to identify as an Australian overseas (normally).

Nationalism is a term that, at its heart, is a concept that aims for the identification of a group, normally an ethnic group, and the exclusion from the group of those who are not seen to belong. Australia is a state that is a 'nation' that is not comprised of one ethnic group and one which has, for many years, aimed to be inclusive of people of other nations rather than exclusive. Exercises that seek to place some artificial set of values or ethnic requirements on being an 'Australian' take us a step closer to place where many of 'us' would be very uncomfortable.

It worries me that John Howard is talking more and more of national identity and now of 'aspirational nationalism'. He likes the idea of nationalism - or he doesn't understand it. Either way he is a worry.

Their Just Deserts

2007-08-17T10:13:00.000+09:30

I really do feel for the people who have invested in the share market only to see it bounce around as it is at the moment and I am sorry that some of them are losing money they might have made if they had sold a little earlier.

But I have the this sneaking suspicion that well deserved retribution is being visited upon the hedge funds and those greedy sub-prime lenders. I know that trading in money is something that provides a lot of good for some people but I can't help seeing it as being as unproductive as any other form of gambling. Much fun for some of course but still unproductive. They don't actually make anything of any value to anyone.

The pity is that people who have invested in productive investments for quite proper purposes are being caught up in the correction/melt down/minor glitch etc.

Brough vs the Yolgnu

2007-08-16T14:46:00.000+09:30

Poor Mal Brough. He has run into a problem in Arnhem Land and it seems to be upsetting him.

Brough's survey team were quietly asked to leave Yirrkala last week and didn't get much of a run at Raminginning a day earlier.

Ronnie Baramala, the spokesperson for Rammo, told the survey team that he had no problem with them. They were just public servants doing their job. He told them that they should come back with the two 'troublemakers', Howard and Brough and that they should be prepared to answer questions about the linkages between the takeover of land, removal of the rights of landowners to control access to their freehold land and child sexual abuse.

The survey team then went to Yirrkala where they were told that, if they were unable to answer questions then, they might as well leave. The team was told that they should get Minister Brough to come to the community and answer the questions. Their questions were similar to those of Rammo but they were also worried about the prohibition of kava.

All of this was pretty calmly done. Not too much in the way of histrionics. Everyone was being pretty respectful, although they were clearly not happy.

Then Mal had a good idea. He would talk to Noel Pearson and Galarrwuy Yunupingu. It is not clear what he talked to them about but he did it in NE Arnhem Land on the weekend so there are many who assume that it had something to do with recent events at Rammo and Yirrkala.

The perception is, and was always going to be, that Mal came to talk to Galarrwuy as the bull goose of the Yolgnu. But, while Galarrwuy is a powerful man and has played a significant role, in NE Arnhem Land he is simply one of the senior men of one of the eighteen clans in the general area. He has no right to speak on behalf of others and there have been, at times, deep distrust between his clan and others.

Inevitably, there was criticism of the meeting. Mal responded by saying that the people complaining, and who threw his survey team out, were really just doped up kava drinkers who
were upset about the prohibition on kava couldn't care less about children.

Let the games begin!

Mal sees himself as a pretty tough guy. The Yolgnu clan leaders are not shrinking violets. Djawulpi Marika is the Town Clerk of Yirrkala. He was a CLP candidate at the last Territory election. The Rev Dr Djinyniyi Godarra is ex-Moderator of the Uniting Church in the Territory. He is a leader of one of the more significant clans. Wali Wunungmurra was the Principal of the Yirrkala School. Raymatja Marika is an internationally regarded artist and a woman who serves on a number of authorities. There are many other men and women of real standing and considerable capacity who would have no fear of a public stoush.

These are people who have never 'lost' their lands. Ownership has never passed to anyone else. The Land Rights Act formally recognises their ownership, but the people didn't need the Act to tell them they owned the land. They have known that, except in extreme circumstances (such as the Gove Mine), they are in control - until now.

It is relatively easy to deal successfully with the Yolgnu people. You show respect and an appreciation of their interests and concerns. If you are going to try to divide and conquer then be sure to get it right. Make sure that the group you divide off has some real numbers and will be able to hold sway against opposition. Oh, and be prepared to fail completely with the people you have divided off.

This dispute gives all indications of getting more messy. It probably wont worry Brough too much. He is playing to an audience who believes that something, anything, needs to be done to 'sort out' the Aboriginal affairs mess. He doesn't really need to care what anyone in the NT thinks, let alone five thousand or so Yolgnu.

But these people will not give up easily and they have long, long memories. I wish them well.

The Blues Cup

2007-08-15T07:14:00.000+09:30

It may be an omen, in fact I think it is, but I am not too sure what it all means.

I have had a Carlton cup, just a coffee cup that is, for many, many years. Not sure when it first arrived here but I know that when it first arrived it had a bright, dark blue Carlton badge.

Over time it faded. So did the fortunes of the team and the entire club for that matter. Chairman John Elliot was finally shifted along with others on the board, we lost draft picks for two years and dropped from a regular finals contender to the bottom feeders.

I have been supporting Carlton since the early 60's when I had a compelling reason to pick a team to support (having just moved to Canberra, knowing nothing about the game but thrown into a school yard where everyone had a team). Alex Jezualenko played for Eastlake and he was getting married to a girl from the suburb I lived in and he went to play for Carlton so Carlton it was.

I didn't actually join the club in the good days - they didn't need me -but, when they slipped down to the bottom, I joined up and hand over my money every year.

Anyway, back to the cup. It faded until TWOMD believed it was actually just a white cup - a bit like Carlton's away jersey but without the touch of blue. That was OK. Sort of symbolic. But now it has cracked, right through, completely buggered.

What does this mean? Is it all over for the team? Will they never win again? Or does it, could it possibly mean, that they have broken their run of bad times and are about to start to climb the ladder again?

I believe that it is the latter - of course. The cup deserves respect. It will receive an appropriate fate. The club should never forget the bad times but let this be the end of it. For 2008 let us see a finals campaign with the Blues battling to win.

For this to happen I suspect that it might be a good strategy to sell Fev - unless he performs a miracle and grows up in the next few weeks - and use the money to get a couple of good un's.

But with or without Fev just remember that Carlton will be there in September in 2008!

Mary River

2007-08-07T07:59:00.000+09:30

For many years a group of people have hired house boats on the Mary River for one long weekend. We drive slowly up the river, meet for one lunch, drive further, look at things - crocodiles, birds, buffaloes, sunsets, sunrises, water - eat some excellent food, drink excellent wine and beer, play cards, play mahjongg and generally have a very relaxing time.

Many of us only see each other once a year but there are some that come from a long way to play.

Now I will try to put some photos up.

Unfortunately the croc was hiding his head. He wasn't by any means the biggest but he was very calm about us - or perhaps trying to lure us in just a little closer.

The fish the jabirus were eating looked a tad off but they are beautiful birds. The sea eagle took off just a little later - but you will have to imagine that.

I have many, many more of the sunsets. Perhaps this will do for a taste.

Is It Ignorance or Doesn't He Care?

2007-08-02T07:26:00.000+09:30

Our local councillor is a woman, Sue, who lives up the road. She works at the local servo, has been known to have a beer and smokes rollies - but she is going to give up. Thanks to Sue's representations, our road has now been sealed past our gate, but not to Sue's place.

Sue and I don't agree about everything but, on most things that matter at the local council level - roads, fire and weed management, community services, development and animal control - we are pretty much in agreement. And if we don't agree we can have a chat. In fact, if we disagree enough then I could get myself organised and run against her. Probably wouldn't win but it would shake things up enough to have my point well heard by all.

Our MLA, Rob, is a mate of mine. He used to work for me and stayed a mate afterwards. Rob doesn't get involved in local issues. Instead he is held accountable for the things that are the Territory Government's responsibility - health, major roads, education, housing, infrastructure development. Rob may not always agree with me but he always pays attention. He knows that I am a vicious sod and if he upsets enough people like me then he is out of a job. In an electorate of just over 4,000 electors everyone is a potential 'vicious sod'.

Rob is a member of the ALP and, while he is personally accountable to his electors, his party is also accountable. Rob may do the right thing but we still might have to throw him out if his party stuffs things up. This is precisely what happened to Tim, the previous MLA - good bloke, good representative, wrong party.

Warren, or more properly Wozza, is our local MHR. Wozza is also a pretty good sort of bloke. He has been there for a long time and I suspect that the next will be his last term unless he cracks it and becomes a Minister. Lingiari is a safe Labor electorate. Some would call it rusted on. Voters in this electorate obviously make their decisions on all sorts of factors but it would be no surprise to find that Indigenous and regional development issues are up there for most people and the ALP is clearly seen as better on those.

All of these people are my representatives. They are accountable for their actions and the actions of their parties - and they know it. The people who stand against them were also held accountable for their actions and the actions of their parties and that is why they were not elected.

It seems to me to be stating the absolutely bleeding obvious that the capacity to hold our representatives accountable is at the heart of a representative democracy.

Buck passing and cost shifting are diseases that can make this 'heart' of our representative democracy very ill. They are probably impossible to cure completely but they are so much more debilitating where it is not completely clear who is responsible for something. No level of government is immune from the seductive influence of being able to spin a line that someone else is to blame. A bureaucrat who fails to get someone else to pay for something that needs to be done when that is remotely possible would not last.

So I would argue that the first step in allowing us to hold our representatives accountable, and thus keeping the heart of our representative democracy well exercised and healthy, is clarity of responsibility.

As with anything that involves the division or provision of power, achieving clarity of responsibility between Federal, State and local levels of government is very hard to achieve. Those who developed our Constitution were well aware of the issue. Unfortunately, they were actually 100% wrong in thinking that they needed to try to protect the Commonwealth from the States, but they still provided a system for sorting out problems.

The system is actually pretty simple. Specify the powers of one level of government, add a couple of absolute prohibitions, leave all other powers and functions to the States, give the High Court the power to interpret and, if all else fails send the issue to the people in a referendum.

Many, many people would say that we have an imperfect system. Gough Whitlam as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in 1966 in a speech to the Fabian Society proposed a system that would abolish the States and create 18 regional governments. It might have been a good idea but it never had a show because the other side of politics - and probably most of his side - wouldn't wear it. And as everyone knows a referendum that is not supported by both major parties has no hope.

There are other ways of changing the system. Again it is basically very simple. You simply get control of the money and use it to both strangle the States and pursue your own agenda. You can do this now quite legally under the Constitution. The High Court is likely to support your moves.

This situation, by the way, is not new. The Concrete Pipes Case in 1971 gave the Commonwealth a very powerful weapon in the corporations power and Moore v Doyle on industrial relations was decided in 1969.

It may be legal but is it right? Do we want a system where one level of government makes all policy decisions? Do we want a system where our State/Territory governments wither on the vine and where our local councils, in whatever shape they end up, are simply purveyors of the policy of our federal government?

I don't know what everyone else wants but I know that I want to have a say. I want the chance to have the case debated and, on something this important, I want to have a vote.

And I have to say, in my most restrained voice, that I object strenuously to a Prime Minister and a government that, for short term political purposes, are prepared to create precedents that will make it so much easier for another government to move just a bit further and further and further ....

And what is this rubbish about the Commonwealth's supposed 'overwatch' role. Where the blazes did that come from? Certainly not the Constitution.

It is Not Just About Power

2007-07-09T20:33:00.000+09:30

John Howard has done something that current ALP Premiers and Chief Ministers, and possibly a new Labor Prime Minister, should reflect on and then replicate. He has had an agenda and he has pursued it.

Our current PM has changed the society in a way we wouldn't have imagined possible 10 years ago. He has turned us from a society that was proud of its place as a safe haven for refugees to one that regards them with suspicion, from a society where tolerance and respect for difference were lauded as desirable goals to one where the views of Alan Jones are favored and from one where unions played a diminishing but still important role to one where they are being painted as pariahs, apparently successfully.

Mr Howard has done this and more by never taking his eye off his real agenda, even while he allowed the opinion polls to make most of his day to day decisions.

I have a real worry about the current State Labor governments. I wonder if they think that being in power is what it is all about.

I am not in a search for ideological purity or rampant reformers. I spent the first 22 years of my life being governed by a LNP government. The line that it is better to have our principles intact and remain in opposition never cut much ice as far as I was concerned. Australians threw out Labor when I was born and it wasn't until I voted for the first time that the party made it back.

And I remember well the discussions and debates in endless party meetings and over many beers about whether and how much could/should be sold out, changed, massaged or forgotten in order to present a package the electorate would go for. But there was never a time when we actually believed that a Labor government would not advocate and implement what we considered to be progressive social and economic policy.

The Hawke government shook my faith somewhat but Keating brought a lot of it back.

What of the current Labor governments in the States and Territories? Which one is out there driving a progressive agenda, creating an environment where there is opportunity for all and providing real assistance to the people on the bottom of the heap?

I haven't spent a lot of time looking at what is happening in every State and Territory but, with the honorable exception of John Stanhope, I can see no Labor leader doing what I want to see a Labor leader doing.

Yes, you have to be in power. As Clare Martin said once 'the worst day in government is better than the best day in opposition'. But it is necessary that you do more than be in power.

Standard operating procedure seems to be focus on the economy, keep business on-side, keep a close eye on the polls and shamelessly spin every issue to maintain the desired image of a 'don't scare the horses' government, leaving any possibility of a social policy agenda to be dealt with only when the situation becomes critical.

John Howard has done well. Would that Labor leaders observe and find a way to set and achieve their agendas.

They're Watching

2007-07-08T06:48:00.000+09:30

There are many good things about working in the bush on your own all day. There is, for instance, no one about to see the stupid things you do. At least not everything.

I am putting in a fence around our big block at the moment. The fence is going in a fair way from habitation. Most of it about 2 kms away, but coming closer down the northern boundary.

My dad taught me to fence in the very different conditions of the Southern Tablelands of NSW. He built good strong fences that kept the rabbits out and the sheep, cattle and horses in. They were always straight, the posts were straight up and things were done properly.

My fence needs to keep cattle, horses and (if I can convince the appropriate authority) buffalo in but needs to allow wallabies, pigs and all wildlife easy movement.

I thought the ground down South was hard but I have to say that, compared with some of the ground I am digging in here in Eva Valley, it wasn't so bad. When you drop the posthole digger into the ground and it simply polishes the surface, you know this is going to be a difficult one.

But every Wet season the ground gets very soggy almost everywhere. So the trick is, as it is with most things to do with soil up here, to add water. I am pretty sure that my dad would smile and shake his head if he heard this but standard procedure is to dig out as much as I can - you know when the crow bar bounces back up and smacks you in the ear - and then add as much water as you can get in the hole. Walk away and come back in a few hours. Repeat.;

Part of the problem is over engineering, possibly. I am putting in a fence that will be 1200 mm high. Strainers need to be in the ground 1/3 of their length. These are the rules. Thus they should be in about 600mm. I have built strainers that are 2m long, at least, just to be sure.

There should only need to be 3 sets of strainers for this job because I only have 2 sides left to fence but, instead there are 6 and I may need to put in a couple more. This requires 12 holes, at least.

This happens because, as my neighbour tells me, either the first surveyor - who marked out the blocks 100 years ago - or the one I hired at great expense to tell me where the boundary is, were drunk at the time. Possibly both. The boundary wanders a bit you see. Nice straight lines are really what you want. They are easier and everyone can admire them.

To make things more interesting, one part of the boundary goes through a Wet season creek line. This means that, although it is like iron at the moment, the ground will turn to soup during the Wet. What will happen to the strainers in there? Two sets of them. I have a plan based on bracing them to others that should be more solid but I don't know if it will work.

The location of these labours is, as I said, well away from anyone along a track that the council does not maintain.

Neighbour gives me a call to discuss shifting his cattle, 'that fence is going to be a bugger to build through that swamp'. Up at the shop to get the paper another bloke 'how many pickets will you be putting in? About 350? They'll be a bugger to drive in that country'. Yet another 'jeez mate, you have taken on a big job there. You should get someone in to give you a hand'.

My current worry is putting up a 1.6 km line, dead straight up a bit of a hill. Problem is that, when it is built, you will get a glimpse of some it from the main road, if you happen to look.

My occasional adviser on matters to do with the development of this block would say to me - I can almost hear her, - 'what does it matter if there is a little kink in the fence. People don't go round checking whether other peoples fences are straight do they? Don't worry about it.'

They aren't watching! They don't look! Don't kid yourself.

This AWA Business

2007-07-07T07:33:00.000+09:30

There has been a hell of a lot written about AWAs and I am sure that every point and its brother have been covered many times in the debate. But there is one that I haven't heard yet.

Most of what we hear is about people on the bottom of the pile being done over by bosses or about how those workers in high demand are able to negotiate good contracts with their bosses.

My situation was not covered by either of the above situations. I was a 'permanent' public servant for many years. I reached a level where permanence was considered not appropriate by my employer and I was offered a fixed term contract. I resigned my permanent post and signed up for a contract.

Now I had a job that I loved. I had the power to make things happen that I believed were important to significant parts of the community. I was able to influence decisions of government in a pretty direct way and I was able to create teams that were often enthusiastic and highly productive. The fact is, and my bosses knew it well, I would have done the same job, with the same amount of zeal, for half the money.

My negotiation skills were considered sufficiently good for me to lead negotiations on behalf of government in major inter-governmental agreements and I believe that I had the reputation of bringing in a good product.

There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that the only reason that I received a reasonable contract from my employers was because others had set the precedent. I was simply a terrible advocate on my own behalf.

When I decided to leave it wasn't because I was not receiving enough. It was primarily because I realised that, if I was ever going to do some of things I had always wanted to do, then I had better get moving. When I left they broke my job into 2 and then added 3 more off siders.

The point is not that I felt I was done over. It is that I was not, am not, unique. There are many people in public services, non government organisations and private enterprises who are dedicated to their jobs and who feel that they are playing an important role. These people are easy meat in any contract negotiation.

In the new world of individuals I suppose there is less place for people who are not able to represent themselves. I am not convinced that this is a good thing or that the world will benefit in the long term.

Neither is the high end of town. Unions of workers may be on the nose but business continues to operate collectively bigger and better than ever before.

It all strikes me as a con job - and the surprise for me is that people don't seem to realise it.

An Experiment - Sort of

2007-07-03T21:39:00.000+09:30

Well. It has happened. The woman of my dreams has left me. Only for a week though. Has had to go to Perth and Alice Springs. I suspect it is for playing up purposes but she would have me believe she has work to do. Is that believable? And on Saturday night there is a major function in Alice that she is working on getting all done up for. Even less believable.

Now this is a strange situation. You see she is a woman who just loves to shop. She is going to a place where there a lot more shops than here or even in Darwin. Her Perth meeting will only last for a few hours but she has to stay on until she can pick up plane connections. Loads of free time and she is in the center of a city with lots of shops. Should be heaven.

Not so.

She will shop alright, but that simply means looking - and very occasionally trying something on. It doesn't mean actually buying. That is where I come in. Not to pay or anything like that. My role is to work out what she might actually want to buy and then try to convince her to actually make the purchase. I always err on the side of buying more rather than less so it can be a painful process - for me that is. The lady just keeps looking and is totally relaxed about it all. Smiles a lot.

With me not there she is going to be in trouble. Unless there are some excellent specials I suspect that this whole trip will be a shopping failure.

Of course, she may read this post. That will be interesting. I am prepared to punt that she will either buy a lot or buy nothing. Interesting eh? Sneaky perhaps but you have to be sneaky sometimes.

Have a Look

2007-07-02T18:22:00.000+09:30

at this one on Club Troppo. The bloke who wrote this must be intelligent. We agree with each other.

Time to Reel Them In

2007-06-27T13:57:00.000+09:30

Howard and Brough are now pretty well on the hook. They are committed to making 'something' happen and are starting to talk about this being a 'well planned' approach that will operate over the 'long term' - not that it was or is.

There is a long way to go and there will be snags along the way that could give them the opportunity to spit the hook but a gradual increase in the pressure should keep them there and set the scene nicely for a new government. John Altman's statement today that it could cost $5 billion to fund the Australian Government's intervention is the sort of thing that is useful. Now we need the police, doctors and others to find that the health of kids is worse than we thought and that it is connected to poor housing, lack of family support and, most importantly, lack of education and lack of meaningful occupation.

Don't get me wrong, this is still an abhorrent approach that fails in a most basic way to recognise that the people who are the target deserve dignity and respect. As I was just reminded, Paul Keating in the Redfern Speech put the question "Ask yourselves. What if this was done to you?"

But it still gives me some satisfaction that Howard and Brough have opened this can of worms. They wont want to shut it and neither will they be able to. Imagine if Rudd had tried to spend up big in Indigenous affairs in government early next year. The right would have had a conniption and I am not sure that Rudd would have had the necessary to carry through. Now, though, he will simply be operating in a bipartisan manner - in fact, if it is played right, the ALP will have no option but to introduce real programs backed by real dollars.

So let's keep the line moving in, building the pressure until they are all well and truly in the boat and can not wriggle out of doing what needs to be done to give Indigenous kids a chance.

The Howard/Brough Plan

2007-06-24T20:22:00.000+09:30

The response by the Australian Government to the report on the sexual abuse of Indigenous children in the Northern Territory has been getting a lot of coverage in the news and current affairs programs and, of course, on other blogs. I have started a contribution many times but each time my anger and frustration has generate far too much obscenity. So I have stopped. Because simply railing against such moves is not going to make anything happen.

Sexual abuse, any abuse, of children is beyond the pale. There are few actions that I would not support if they stopped abuse happening. I would even support John Howard and Mal Brough and, for me, that would be a major step.

For me the point is that the action must stop abuse happening.

Does the Howard/Brough plan meet that test?

I watched Insiders on the ABC this morning. It struck me yet again that there seems to be a serious confusion in play. There is no doubt that there are paedophiles operating in Aboriginal communities in the Territory. I suspect that it will be found that there are both black and white ones that are there, and that have been there. I suspect also that there are kids who have been abused and that are being abused by these people.

But is this it? Are there really so many paedophiles operating in remote NT communities that they are causing the sorts of effects that are noted by the report of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild? Or is the real situation different?

The average age of first birth of girls at Wadeye during the last couple of years is 12. I have listened to young men - young being less than 20 - arguing about who had fathered the most children. There was no suggestion that they were paedophiles and no suggestion in the community that the girls were other than willing participants. They enjoyed the money that comes with children. Quite lucrative is the having of children. Even without the baby bonus, family support payments are useful and they come every week. You don't have to do anything. Just have babies.

Before TV hit remote communities there were people who were worried about what some programs would do to society on Aboriginal communities. People were concerned that young impressionable people would be given a strange view of the world by programs such as Baywatch. They shouldn't have worried. Many young impressionable people on remote communities moved quickly from TV to DVDs. These days there are stories of wide scale use of hard core porn DVDs being used in many communities. There is increasing evidence that some are getting some education about what is acceptable form these DVDs.

The system of promised wives had broken down in some places but it remains strong in others. There are prohibitions on men taking up with their promised wives too early but 'too early' is a definitional question. The 'too early' for some may not always be the 'too early' for others.

Australian law requires monogamy. It is quite possible, however, for a traditional Aboriginal man to have more than one wife, and at times quite a few. The practice is possibly gradually being abandoned but it is still a factor in many communities.

Add alcohol, petrol or ganga to this mix and you have a recipe for what may be the abuse of children.

I could go on.

The point of all of this is that the problem that the Howard/Brough plan is attacking is not as simple as chasing paedophiles and protecting kids from them. There are a range of both old and new cultural mores and practices that are in play here as well, of course, as the probable paedophiles. The Wild/Anderson report recognised the complexity, as does anyone who has any knowledge of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.

This is all a long way of talking about why I have been infuriated by the Howard/Brough plan. We have police and the army being sent in to 'stabilise' the situation. Stabilise what exactly? Rampant paedophiles stalking the streets of townships? Isn't it the nature of these people that they are normally good at hiding what they do and thus take considerable, careful detective work to find?

Is it grog running they are going to stop? Given that all bar 6 or 7 communities are already 'dry' there is a lot of grog running that goes on. Extra coppers may slow them down but stop them? There is a level of dedication in the grog runners that inspires high levels of innovation. Just fly over Ali Curung and look at the dozens of tracks leading into the township. Consider the blokes who are prepared to walk across a crocodile infested river with a carton on their head night after night. 60 coppers and 60 communities. And just for 6 months. Need to be smarter than that.

Medical checks on the girls under 16. What will they find? That many of the teenagers have had sexual relations? Highly likely I would have thought.

Remove the need for permits to enter Aboriginal land. What has that got to do with sexual abuse?

Take over administration of communities from the current community councils. Could be relevant but it is not easy to see an immediate connection.

What is needed is a strategy that deals with all of the aspects of abuse of children. This is precisely what was attempted by the Wild/Anderson report and, while I don't agree with all of it, there are recommendations there that could address a truly appalling situation.

How then should we react to the Howard/Brough plan? Tell them it is a load of rubbish and they might go away. But if they do then they will probably take their money with them and the money is what is needed. The trick for Aboriginal communities in the Territory and for the Northern Territory Government is to manage this situation to ensure the money flows into a plan that actually does address the situation. To do this they will probably have to cop the silly, intrusive and racist bits of the Howard/Brough plan while they do their best to manipulate and move things to achieve some of the outcomes that are necessary.

I well understand the strategy being pursued by the Martin Government. If I worked for them I would probably have suggested something similar. Once you have a force like the Feds moving you can often gradually shift their focus. Getting them moving - or paying attention - is always the larger problem.

But I still bleed for the people who are being demeaned and dimished by the actions of people who have not learned that all people should be treated with dignity and respect.

Our Contract with Society

2007-06-21T07:53:00.000+09:30

I have always had a strong view that with rights comes duty - or responsibility if you prefer. I have a suspicion that this principle was embedded at a very young age, forcefully, by my parents but don't recall a specific event. It may have been my father quietly explaining that riding around on the horse in the afternoon was OK but that getting the milking cows in was required. But there were certainly other occasions. 'You live in this house, you follow the rules'. My mum was always pretty specific. Anyway the principle stuck.

The necessary connection between rights and duty seems to be less well appreciated than is useful for an effective society at the moment. Take political leaders for instance. We have given them the right to govern us. We have said that we will accept the decisions they make and, if necessary, pay with money, time and some even with lives.

Implicit in the principle is that the more significant the right, the greater the duty. Thus, political leaders carry a very heavy duty. The duty to tell us the truth, to govern for us all and to treat us with dignity and respect. That sort of thing. How does this fit with some of what goes on now and what we have become used to? 'Non-core' promises, divisive legislation, 'fudging' on the advice that has been received and flat out lying about matters of major importance because it is impossible for the great unwashed to know the truth.

I am not picking just on political leaders though. The problem is more pervasive in the society. Recently in the Northern Territory we had a terrible situation to do with the McArthur River Mine. The Federal Court made a decision on a technicality that could have looked like it had given victory to people against the mine's plans. The problem was always capable of a relatively easy fix and the determination of the government and the mine for the plan to go ahead was crystal clear. Why then was there a belief on the part of the people opposing that they had won? Why were they celebrating? Because their leaders told them they could win and had won . It was useful to have them believing this to try to put pressure on the government.

It is amazing to me that the people on Palm Island believed that they would see Glen Hurley convicted. Any sensible analysis of the situation would tell you that it was highly unlikely. I am not saying that Hurley did or didn't do what was alleged, just that it was always going to be extremely difficult to prove that he was guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Wasn't it the responsibility of the leadership to ensure that the people they represent were fully aware of this? Is it not almost criminal to create expectations that are not likely to be met?

I am perfectly well aware of the value of mass anger when you are trying to get a government or some other power to change their view. I am also perfectly well aware that the level of anger is closely related to the gap between expectation and reality. It is always seductive for leaders to use the anger of the people they represent to push a point. But with the power to lead comes a duty to the people you lead. That duty does not allow you to lie to them. In fact, it requires that you treat them with dignity and respect.

It may just be me but the sin of all sins is to sell out your own. You tell them the truth and, if you need to use them to make a point, you do it with their informed collaboration.

I used to wonder whether it was much use having rights if with them comes all of these duties. It might be easier just to bop along and not pay much attention to anything. But even if you are living in the long grass there are people who reckon you have a duty not to humbug people or cavort too much in public places. So I guess there is no escaping it.

As a Welder ...

2007-06-19T08:23:00.000+09:30

... I make an excellent report writer. So why do I try to weld?

These days I am spending an inordinate amount of time building. There is a shed to build - foundations are almost there and the rest will be easy. There is 2.5km of fencing to put up - I now have most of the material and just need to weld up the strainer assembly. Job is straight forward. Just bloody hard work.

I have never really learnt how to build things. Have worked it out as I have been going along. Trial and error really. Nothing I put up falls down but it does seem that I often build somewhat over-engineered structures. Standard practice is to look at the plans and the increase the strength by between 33 and 50% - maybe more.

One problem, or challenge if you like, is welding. I am well aware that this is a taks that requires a level of skill and knowledge. Training takes a while and I shouldn't really expect to fire up a welder and get stuck into it. But of course that is what I am doing. Mistakes abound. There is frequent cursing and not a little frustration. It takes a lot of time to get it right. Considerably more I suspect than it would if I was competent.

Welding is just one of the tasks where I leap in and have a go at something when I don't have the skills . Why do I do this?

I have written reports, managed organisations, run projects, analysed policy and developed proposals for over 30 years. There are those who say I am, or was, pretty good at it. Why then am I not doing the things I am good at and battling away instead at doing things I am not? Is life about always doing the things that you are comfortable with or about having a go at something else? Where does satisfaction come from?

For me these days a well welded joint is every bit as fullfilling as a well crafted Cabinet Submission and, when that shed is up and the fence is holding the cattle in, well that will be a cause for celebration.

The Kids Need Us to Pay Attention

2007-06-18T14:56:00.000+09:30

It is impossible not to bleed when you read the report on child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory. You can't avoid feeling as the authors do that something must be done, and urgently. If we judge ourselves as a society on the state of those on the bottom of the pile then we are in deep trouble.

It is to the consiserable credit of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild that they didn't react to the appalling information they gathered by bringing down a report that recommended a massive law and order campaign. They have a few recommendations that call for greater enforcement but there are others that recognise a better way forward.

It is not the law that will sort out this mess. The changes required can't be forced. They can only occur as people themselves change.

The other day on the radio they were talking about Carter Brown novels. Most will be too young to remember these literary masterpeices but you will get some idea what they were like when I tell you that the front cover was normally of a beautiful woman, often scantily dressed and perhaps with a suggestive look on her face. There was nothing too explicit in these novels. It was all suggestion and innuendo. It was in the 1950s after all. The more you understood the more you understood, if you follow me.

The point is that, as a very young bloke and living in a relatively isolated area without any TV in those days, I gathered a lot of my information and analysis about women from Carter Brown novels. Most of it destroyed with the first actual warm breathing woman that I was with but the fantasies were nice for a while - as I dimly recall.

If you have no real education, no job and bugger all else to do all day than sit around watching DVDs and you have easy access to hard core porn, what do you think that young people are watching? Some of the time at least porn DVDs are on the box.

Increasingly, the expectations in Indigenous communities about what is acceptable in the wider society seems to be being formed by TV and DVDs. It is a mixed bag but just think about some of the messages that might come from popular TV and then consider the effect of porn.

Porn means little to most because we know that it is rubbish and that any dose of reality that is present is accidental. We know this because we have some education. We have been to school, our parents have provided and reinforced positive messages. We have a basis on which to assess the material presented. This is not always the case for Aboriginal people in many remote communities.

I am not suggesting that porn should be regulated more heavily or that porn is, in any way, the only reason for the current problem. I am suggesting, pleading actually, that every bit of emphasis that can be given goes to education and communication.

No more crap about not going to school or it being too hard. Get them in there and make sure they have the benefit of an education. And communicate. Tell people the truth and make sure that you do it in the language they know best. And listen to what they tell you, discuss it and come to a joint decision on the way forward.

It is time to act. Has been for a long time.

We need to talk about Kevin

2007-06-12T11:51:00.000+09:30

Do we Australians simply feel more comfortable with duds? Maybe that is it.

We had a government once that lasted for 23 years. Without putting too fine a point on it, that government made sure that it kept things pretty much the same as they had always been. It kept the same businesses working by protecting them from competition, it kept consumers in their place by not giving them the right or capacity to a pursue a fair deal, it kept marriages intact by making it hard to get out of them and it kept people in their place by making it too expensive for those who were not well off to get an education.

But that government became increasingly mouldy and ended up as a joke. It was time for a new government. So we voted one in. Gough and his people established a legislative agenda that made our heads whirl. Family law, trade practices, Aboriginal land rights, reduction in trade barriers, free univesity education etc, etc. I worked in a place that introduced 6 new peices of legislation in 1971/72, 85 in 1973/74 with a further 150 in the next year.

Gough was great on the social stuff but not so flash on the economics. So we threw him out. Gave Mal and his mates a run. They didn't handle the economy much better but did continue some of the social stuff that Gough had started. Mal may not have been all dud, but after Gough he looked like one.

We liked the energy and enthusiasm of the Gough era and after a couple of terms of doleful Mal we turned again to the ALP led this time by the silver bodgie (my dad never called him anything else). Robert James Lee was a man who promised the world but the reality was another thing. Often wondered whether that was why he moved through so many women. There was intelligence, capacity and I think even commitment at times but there seemed to be no courage. No balls if you will pardon the expression. Looked the part and acted it but didn't make the changes we needed.

Paul snatched the job. We didn't give it to him the first time. Didn't really want him. But he wasn't a dud. He made changes. Finished off the job that Gough should have done. Sorted out the economy and created a platform for the future. Started to turn his mind to social policy and issues. The Redfern speech was a start. But he frightened us and, after too short a run, we threw him out.

John Winston has done his best to take us back to the Menzies era but with a bit more viciousness. Unlike Menzies he hasn't just tried to keep everyone in place. He has actively tried to make sure that they will never have the chance to get out of their place. If the society wont get back in line then he is going to force it with his work choices whip.

We come to Kevin.

He is trying very hard not to frighten us. He knows that we are a skittish mob and will bolt back to the relaxed and comfortable side if we hear something that makes us take fright. But I am not completely confident that he understands why we are on his side now.

From Kevin we are looking for some excitement, enthusiasm and energy. Yes we want him to be sensible with the economy and not to stuff it up, but we want more than that. We want a leader and a government that will change the things in society that need to be changed and will make decisions that make us better as a nation, not just the same as we always have been. We want someone who makes us proud of out stance in the world rather than to cringe at the treatment we dish out to refugees, indigenous people and those on the bottom of the pile. We are confident enough now to have another go at being a grown up nation.

Paul expressed his concerns the other night. He should not have done it that way but I think I understand his frustration and his concern that Kevin wont cut the mustard. More of John Winston is simply too much to contemplate. He has to go this time.

I am not trying to say that the duds don't have a place. They give us a chance to consolidate and to catch our breath and you can't go flat out all of the time - apparently. But we don't need a dud now. So come on Kevin, stop following the polls and get stuck in to telling us where Australia should stand in the world and why, what issues are important to you and what you will do about them and what you want to see Australia become and how it will be achieved.

Please can we have another goer like Gough or Paul, not to mention Curtin, Deakin and Fisher and less duds like Menzies, Hawke, Fraser, Lyons, Hughes and Bruce.

Mal Brough - A Testing Man

2007-05-25T14:20:00.000+09:30

A bloke I like a lot, but whose political judgement may be suspect, told me that Mal Brough is seen by his Liberal constituents as a bright and shining star for the party. Perhaps, in some eyes, he is a good politician (but perhaps I wont move to the Sunshine Coast just yet).

A little story - just because I like to tell them.

I know another bloke and he is a mate of mine. He was the CEO of a council on an Aboriginal community. Deeply dedicated and a thinker, but not flash as a diplomat. When Mal came to visit and hectored the people, this bloke I know stood up and slowly (Queenslander - they generally talk bit slow) gave Mal a tour of the appropriate way to deal with people.

Now Mal didn't enjoy being told so he used every bit of influence he had to get rid of this mate of mine. Funny thing was that my mate was going anyway but had to stay on because he was being told to go. Just the type of bloke he is.

Meanwhile there is yet another bloke and he was in gaol. Hit a number of people, very hard. Without a doubt this bloke is one of the most charismatic and intelligent young leaders in his community. A natural. My mate looked past the criminal bit and recognised the quality. He cooked up a scheme where carefully selected people visited the gaol and had long discussions with the bloke inside. Went on for some years.

When he came out of gaol this bloke was a changed man. He still has the position and role that he has always had as the leader of a major group. Now, though, he puts it to good use and he has some ideas on how to do this. He went to the coppers and suggested he could do better if he had a uniform and some training. Sharp intakes of breath all around but thanks to good sense he has been given a role. The place is operating well. Fights are finished and the war is indefinitely suspended.

Back to Mal and my mate the (now ex) CEO. As a man of principle with the level of honesty and integrity we allow our politicians to get away with, well Mal could only clam credit for the rehabilitation of the bloke who was in gaol couldn't he? And it wouldn't do to suggest that someone who had sat him on his arse in a public meeting could have been right all along.

My mate - he has gone fishing but he will turn up again somewhere, I hope. People like Mal, they have been around before and will be again.

Its just a test.

Stuffing Up Good Ideas - Mal's Masterclass

2007-05-23T10:08:00.000+09:30

The media would have you believe that Ministers are the ones who think of all of the policy ideas and make all of the decisions. It's normally not the case but, in the case of the issue of leases of Aboriginal land, the Minister has done his bit.

This such a vexed and complex issue that it is trite to say so but, if you are a Minister with the ability to cut through the crap you can find a simple way through.

‘Traditional owners’ of land are those recognised under the law as having rights and responsibilities for that land. If you listen to the anthropologists and such you will find that there can be different types of responsibilities involving different obligations. A person may have obligations or rights in relation to an area of land but may not be, in some terms a ‘traditional owner’. They might still be described as a traditional owner – but that is often just to help out a dumb whitefella. Increasingly, the term is used by some to describe all Aboriginal people living in an area, particularly if they are pretty dark, but a Minister who is knowledgeable will go past all of that and simply say that a traditional owner is pretty much the same as a freehold title holder. It is a lot easier when you ignore all of the folderol.

Settlements and missions were created, often without regard to whose land was used, normally because they were ‘good’ places to establish such a place – access to water, food, fertile ground etc. The people with responsibility for that land were often ignored. Their rights were trampled and they could no longer properly exercise their responsibilities for that land.

Over time, the two lots of people - those who moved in and those who had specific rights and responsibilities - have worked out ways of getting along. As with all communities, some of the ways people have worked out have been productive for all but most have placed the interests of particular groups over others.

One difficulty now is that there are generations of people who might be called ‘guests’ or visitors. They have no legal rights or responsibilities. Of course they may have a deep attachment to the place in which they were born and raised, they may have worked hard to make it a better place but they are not 'traditional owners'. They have their 'own' land elsewhere.

The consequences of this situation can be dramatic and volatile. Houses can be maltreated and destroyed, public places can be trashed, kids will only go to school when ‘their’ clan group is there and fights over seemingly inconsequential disputes can grow out of hand – quickly.

A way of helping to sort out some of these issues is to find an area where Aboriginal law and mainstream law are in reasonable accord, that is, where the two deal with a similar issue by establishing rights and responsibilities for parties that do not offend either legal system. At the risk of over simplifying it, the two systems both deal with land and are based on the principle that you only use someone else’s land if they agree and, if you use someone’s land then you should pay an agreed consideration.

The idea of leases for houses or house blocks was originally developed to try to give ‘guests’ or very long term visitors some properly articulated rights and responsibilities. It also required that they pay an amount to the people who have recognised rights and responsibilities for that land. Thus we have a contract that can stand up under both legal systems.

It made sense to take this idea further to establish a ‘planning and development authority’ for the township. This would have a majority of people with traditional rights and responsibilities and a couple of ‘guest’ representatives on it along with, say, a couple of people with expertise in town planning or civil engineering – similar to town planning authorities everywhere but without the real estate agents.

So, we have a method of gradually sorting out long standing conflicts and of setting up a process where those people who care about a place have a way of making decisions about its future. At the very least we have an option that people might select if it makes sense to them. How has it all gone so bad?

It has been quite easy to stuff up really. First, you change the model to make it more efficient. Why have lots of these little authorities? Why not just have one or perhaps two? And you don’t really need traditional owners on there, just experts.

Then you make it all simple, straightforward and direct. All of those good things. You say ‘we will only deal with the owners because it is their decision’. You offer them lots of money so they can convince themselves that they are doing something good for the whole place. You insert tight timelines that have to do with your needs. You studiously keep out of the discussion anyone that people have usually turned to for advice. And you make sure that there is as much media attention as you can get so that everybody is on display.

To put the icing on the cake you generate enough angst so that the hand wringers and instant experts come out of the woodwork and confuse everyone.

Now we have a lose/lose situation. If Brough wins the traditional owners and others will be at each others throats. If he loses they will still be at each others throats. Good one!

And I wont start on how to bugger up a great idea for up-grading of town camps.

What is counted, counts?

2007-05-20T10:28:00.000+09:30

One day there is every chance that I wont be able to remember my arguments well, even on pretty boring subjects, so I need to get some of these ideas and arguments down. So this may only make sense if you put yourself in the position of two people arguing in an old people's place.

I have been working on the review of a program over the last couple of months. Nothing all that special except that it is a social program that operates primarily in remote Indigenous communities and utilises community development strategies to achieve outcomes. At one level it should be possible to measure performance against some of the outcomes. You can find some things to count. Unfortunately, the things you can find to count are not the things that are most important.

In an earlier life I made decisions about this, and many other, programs. The pressure to find and use quantifiable performance indicators was substantial and, of course, we played the game. My staff and I found things we could count and reported against them. Had to be accountable.

Increasingly, quantifiable performance indicators and their associated targets, are becoming the way many funders justify their decisions. I am becoming concerned that they actually believe that they are doing the right thing. My difficulty with this is that, in my experience, this is not the way good decisions are made. (A couple of subjective statements there BTW). Rather, they are the way that decision makers cover their backsides and justify themselves when under scrutiny.

It is so much easier to answer a question by saying

'the target was x, we achieved y and it was less/more than expected because of a, b and c'

than to say

'we were aiming to increase pride and self esteem across the community so that people would have the chance to begin to deal more successfully with the issues that are destroying their lives. We don't know yet whether the program will be successful but it is our judgement, based partly on the experience of people expert in this field, that we are on the right track.'

The latter gets you chewed up - or at least that is what the parliamentary committee tried to do to me. We did have an excellent argument though where the issues received some coverage that they normally wouldn't - and I wasn't sacked.

Reducing it all to numbers has a tendency to ignore the complexity in people. You may be able to develop 'happiness indicators' and have a nice little quiz with 20 questions to help you but, if you are paid to make judgements, should you not be expected to have the capacity to do so, and to be accountable for those judgements? And isn't it better for the society that it be informed about the reasons people make decisions rather than argue about numbers? Is not this the way that we develop as a society?

But if we can't count it we will never know - or will we?

Sam the Man

2007-05-14T09:49:00.000+09:30

There is always a dog or two around the place I live. Always has been. I am not too sure why. It may be that I enjoy the company of animals that, sometimes, enjoy mine without the imposition of too many conditions.

Sam and Jojo have been around for the last 4 years or so. Their predecessors died within a month of each other both gored by cattle. Too brave, too inexperienced and too good at getting through the fence.

Sam was bred on an Aboriginal community in the Western Desert. As a pup he was, quite simply, ugly. Almost hairless, big distended belly and so anti social that he kept separate from the other pups in the litter. Blue heeler was a major a part of his breeding but there could have been other bits as well.

The best parts of life for Sam have always been eating and chasing and he was completely indiscriminate about both. Sprinting around a paddock chasing a kite circling, through the bush after a pig or wallaby, on the road after cars (but that stopped a few years ago) or chasing me on the quad bike, always being very careful to ensure that Jojo was not in the lead - never ever.

Biting people is something that is apparently necessary when you are a dog with certain attitudes. When people leave and they shouldn't - even if they are the lovely lady who often feeds you. When people arrive, invited or not - how are you to know? And looking mean is always useful. The bans from the kennels who have looked after Sam mean that he has had to be looked after by people bribed to bring him food at home.

Territory is of the utmost importance and requires constant vigilance. Barking through the fence at possible interlopers requires considerable attention and, if they are silly enough to get too close, ripping up their face is a reasonable response to such a lack of discretion. Neighbourhood relations and vet bills are matters for others to consider.

Vicious? He always puts his teeth quickly and gently around my hand when I let him into the back of the ute - special things utes. He brought a 4 year old who had wandered off from her parents in the bush back to them with his mouth around her wrist - no marks and no crying.

Snakes have played a part in Sam's life. When he was a pup we were woken by an incredible racket and found Sam jammed between 2 pieces of corrugated iron screaming his head off. The other pup was dead and a western brown was leaving. Next night same thing but the western brown was many meters away. Awareness of snakes has been one of the real values of having him around.

I don't know how a snake was able to bite him high on the back of his neck, but it did. Took him a while to die and we thought that he was going to again be Sam the survivor. Not this time though.

Parked him on his favourite hill so that he can continue to keep an eye on the front gate, the fence, the cattle and the house. Not sure why Sam was special, but he was.

Bob Brown vs the Temperance Society

2007-05-10T21:30:00.000+09:30

When you have a child - a small one - you can get away with saying 'Don't do that'. They listen, or at least they get scared enough at the tone of voice that they stop. Then they get older. They want to know why. So then you explain. Then they take liberties. They start to negotiate and you end up with something other than 'Don't do that'. If you are a good parent you still prevent the dangerous activity but you have, along the way, educated and you have worked out a compromise that achieves the actual purpose. Most importantly, you negotiate an agreement and they are more effective (not more efficient) than fear.

You can treat whole societies like small children. We do it all of the time. Don't murder that person, don't take that drug, don't beat your wife, don't mine that uranium, don't drink that alcohol, etc etc.

Prohibition has its place but, in my view, not as a first option. Prohibition is a very blunt instrument. There is no room in prohibition for the negotiation of arrangements that might avoid another greater harm, for the establishment of conditions that might mitigate the dangerous or anti-social effects or for allowing people to exercise their individual and community rights.

Back in the dim, dark past when I was of a certain age some people used to grow marijuana among their tomato plants. It apparently wasn't as potent as the stuff people use today but it did the job. Probably still would. But we banned it. A war on drugs was declared. The cost of prosecuting this war has been immense. The profit motive kicked in and that drug along with lots of its mates have been developed and refined and sold by those outside the law at a great profit. Massive societal damage has been caused and is continuing because, as a society we didn't negotiate, make that don't negotiate, effective arrangements that met all necessary purposes.

Just imagine if 40 years ago we had adopted a policy that the use of recreational drugs would be legal but controlled. A licensing system would have been put in place, standards set for quality and strength, taxes paid, usage monitored and controlled. Would more people have used these drugs? Possibly, but with any luck we would have been smart enough to maintain quality at a level that kept damage to a minimum. Rather than a net societal and economic cost there may even have been a net gain.

I am very well aware that prohibition is supported strongly by social policy makers because it is such a powerful tool. For instance, there are figures that suggest that, if you prohibit the use of alcohol, it is possible to achieve a 50% drop in use. These are the drinkers who drink because grog is readily available. Drinkers who have enough cash to buy ahead, enough brains to plan, those who are keen to drink, or addicted, or resent being told they can't or who don't agree that they shouldn't all continue and with gusto.

Uranium mining, now this is one that could raise a few eyebrows. I have always been ambivalent on this. The previous ALP policy on 3 mines was simply a typical Hawke developed compromise. Sort of half achieved something but really was a con job. Banning uranium mining sounds like a good idea. It is a very dangerous substance. The waste hangs around for a thousands of years bombs kill masses rather than the more usual hundreds. It is also useful and, perhaps, does less environmental damage than coal as a fuel for power stations.

But the real problem I have with a prohibition on uranium mining is that I can't get past the feeling that we want to ban it because we are scared of it, or perhaps more correctly, we are scared that we will not be able to develop sufficiently careful or enforceable controls. Or maybe it is that we are scared that the governments we elect wont control it. Terrible thing fear. Debilitating for individuals and for societies. Time, I think, to get over the fear and get on with sorting this one out.

I could go on about grades of murder but perhaps I have made enough of an argument to cause one.

United We Stand - Does Culture Divide?

2007-05-04T11:50:00.000+09:30

This is a difficult one, and will probably get too long.

I have been committed to the principles of collective action all of my life. The ALP has rules on its books based on those principles requiring solidarity on the part of members who are endorsed by the Party.

Last night 3 ALP Members of the NT Legislative Assembly crossed the floor to vote against a Bill being put by the ALP Minister for Mines. In accordance with the rules and precedent in the ALP Barbara McCarthy, Karl Hampton and Alison Anderson should be expelled if they don't resign first. The Chief Minister has said they wont be disendorsed.

How did it get to this? The brief facts are:

Xstrata have an underground mine at McArthur River, originally built underground due partly to the difficulties they would have in getting approval to go open cut;
Xstrata apply to go open cut and to divert the McArthur River to do so;
long approval process, consultations, EIS and negotiations;
decision finally made but appealed by the NLC on behalf of some traditional owners;
appeal upheld due to an interpretation placed on words in the Mining Act by the Supreme Court;
NT Parliament moves to correct the deficiency and allow its original decision to stand.

There are over 1,000 people dependent on the mine for work. McArthur River Station, the site of the mine, is owned by the company but there are people who are accepted as traditional owners for that country. Some disagree with the diversion of the river.

The news of the success of the appeal was hailed as a massive victory for the traditional owners and the environment. The NLC was ecstatic and the Environment Centre more so. The mine owners talked about closure and shut down work on the extension. The media ran about saying the Minister for Mines was incompetent. Celebrations all round.

Unfortunately for the people who cared, the group of traditional owners who are opposed, no one mentioned the bleeding obvious - if it all fell over on a technical issue, what would happen if that issue was fixed?

Into this mix we then inject the emotion of a funeral for one of the leaders of the opposing group. The man was the brother of Barbara McCarthy, MLA.

We have a highly emotional situation, a technical legal issue (that sounds simple) and the capacity for key lobby groups to make hay. What does the Government decide to do? Introduce a Bill and take it through the Parliament on urgency in 2 days with 3 of the 6 Indigenous MLAs crossing the floor.

There may have been a worse way to handle this but you would need to go back to the days of the CLP to find it.

The real point, and I have wandered off this a bit, is that the ALP government did what it was advised to do and relied on an understanding of the rules and principles of the Party, the culture if you like, to bring all of its members along. This put the Indigenous MLAs in an impossible situation. They well understand the principles of collective action, they live by them. But their first responsibility is to their family and to other Indigenous people. Allegiance to the Party is down the line a bit.

Does this mean they can't be part of the ALP or any other group that depends on collective action? I don't think so but I do think that it means that the two have to sit down and understand together what they are doing and why. Then they need to work out a way of dealing with the problem because, if they fail, the Labor Government will gradually be destroyed and Aboriginal MLAs run the risk of becoming a weak 'third force' with a CLP government in constant power.

Oh, and the other thing I would do is find someone to go into the Department of Mines and start removing the incompetent fools who stuffed up the original advice on the decision and then proposed an insensitive way of solving the problem.

Oh Susannah

2007-05-02T05:53:00.000+09:30

Susannah Janvin was 19 years old when she climbed on board the ship 'Comet' in Cork in 1841. She was on her own when she set off on a ship to the other side of the world and, unlike many others who came to Australia at that time, she was free.

Eighteen months after she made it to Australia Susannah married William Simpson. He was a convict serving 21 years for desertion from the British Army in Canada. They had 11 children. One of them was my great grandfather.

Susannah was born in Mountmelick, County Laois in Ireland in 1822. There is no record of her birth. There was a fire in the records office in Dublin that took out many of the records of that time. But there is also no record, anywhere, of Susannah's parents. Her marriage and death certificates don't show any names for her parents. Janvin is not an Irish name and we have been unable to find any record of Janvins anywhere in Ireland.

Janvin is possibly a French name. There are some Janvins in France and, at about the right time, in French Canada. Some of these moved to the USA and there are Janvins there now but, so far, there is no apparent connection with Susannah.

So, why were the Janvins in Ireland when Susannah was born? There are no records that I have found so far or French emigration to Ireland at that time although there were 1,100 French soldiers who went to Ireland in 1798 as part of the Rebellion. They were led by an officer named Humbert and succeeded in scaring the daylights out of the English for a few weeks. When they were beaten by tens of thousands of English soldiers, the French were swapped for English prisoners of war and were sent home. The Irish who fought with them were slaughtered - 30,000 of them. And some wonder why they have been so antsy for so long.

Back to the point though, did a French soldier get together with an Irish colleen? There was a strong contingent of women involved in the 1798 rebellion. Would not be beyond possibility that there was a marriage or at least a relationship and, if the women involved were tough enough to take on the English, they could be strong enough to keep the name of a child's father. Susannah could possibly be a daughter or granddaughter of such a relationship.

Then again there is William. He was busted for desertion in Canada and tried at Kingston on 16 January 1836. At the time he was 28. Some months later there was a mutiny in the same area. Many of the soldiers involved were executed. William, however, was long gone having been sent to Australia for 21 years. Now there were French Janvins in Canada. The British were there to fight them. Was there a 14 year old French Canadian girl who was the reason for the young-ish British soldier going AWOL? Did she somehow get herself to Ireland and, eventually, to Australia and link up again with her soldier who, by the way, was still unmarried at 35 years of age. Bit of a stretch, but the stuff of a good romantic saga.

Or were the Janvins the descendants of Huegenots. They were hounded out of Europe a fair bit earlier though and you would have to punt that, if some had settled in Ireland there would be some sort of records, somewhere, of someone. The name is not on any Huegenot list that I have found to date.

Susannah was my only ancestor on that side of the line who came here of her own free will. Surely she has a good story.

to burn or not to burn

2007-05-01T07:41:00.003+09:30

The pressure is on again. It comes every year about this time in this part of the world. You have a block of land therefore you must burn it. A lot of people do it. It is the responsible thing to do say the Bushfires Council. You must reduce your fuel load early in the Dry so that it wont burn late in the Dry.

They tell me that the research is all in. Burning annually in the Top End is the way to go. Burn early though so that the burn is cool and doesn't do too much damage to the larger trees, gives the animals some chance of survival and, with a cool burn, there is less chance of it getting away and destroying someone elses's block - or taking out a touch more of yours than intended.

Aboriginal people did it. They still do in fact. Many plants require an annual burn to generate germination. Animals have learned to live with it and clearly many survive. Pastoralists need to to it to freshen up pasture and thus provide nutrient to their animals further into the Dry.

But what about the land. The soil pumps its nutrient into the plants that it hosts, the plants grow flat out during the Wet and in the early part of the Dry, seeding and getting ready to die off so that they will rot down and return some of the nutrients they have gathered and processed to the soil ready for the next stage of the cycle. What happens when we interrupt the cycle? Less nutrient goes back into the soil, more carbon into the atmosphere, less viable seed available for next year?

Aboriginal people burn for a number of reasons. It is a very effective means of chasing game out of the heavy scrub. Fire also brings on some bush foods or makes it easier to gather.

Is there another way of achieving the required purposes? We could slash the grass on the smaller blocks. Lot of work in this. We could try grazing in cells to manage the grass on larger holdings more effectively. We could make sure we have excellent firebreak networks so that wildfires can be stopped.

Research to date has looked at when to burn. Why not research on whether to burn? Is burning simply a lazy land manager's tool?

I have a slightly different problem but one shared by many in this area. We have gamba grass. This is an introduced grass from Africa. A wonderful grass that grows quickly in large clumps to 3 or 4 meters, loaded with nutrient and oils. It is a great stockfeed and is so efficient that, even when subjected to intense grazing pressure, it will shoot green at the end of the Dry season when there is bugger all moisture in the soil. Gamba burns hot and high. A gamba fire takes out everthing - trees and all. After the fire the gamba comes back bigger and brighter than before, shooting from the burn tussocks, faster than any of the native grasses. Given time gamba and fires will turn the savana woodland to savanna grassland - gamba grassland. We didn't sow this grass but we do have to manage it.

Don't think I will burn this year. Best get that tractor moving and sharpen the blades on the slasher. I have a lot of work to do.

Always this Dumb???

2007-04-30T08:46:00.000+09:30

All over the media this morning we have stories about the reaction of business to the new ALP policy on industrial relations. Shock, horror business is saying it doesn't like the new policy. Commentators are reacting predictably, many suggesting that we, or perhaps the ALP, should be worried about the reaction of business.

But why would the ALP be worried? There are many more workers than business owners and this shift must be about possible electoral success. So, is it the ALP spin doctors who are running the lines about the reaction of big business and are they sucking in the right wing commentators to their cause? Is the ALP trying to make out that this is really a policy that supports workers?

In fact, the real surprise is the movement of the ALP, apparently in concert with the unions, away from 120 years of fundamental policy supporting the right of workers to withdraw their labour and to do so in concert with others.

Is there not a responsibility on media commentators to try to go beyond the spin and to inform their readers? Shouldn't they be talking about the lurch to the right of ALP? Might they even talk about principles going up in smoke on the altar of electoral success?

Of course the world of work has changed during the last 120 years and different policy is required but we would be better served by the media through a more thoughtful analysis of that change and comment on how best to manage the, at times, competing rights of the community and individuals within it.