Backward step for engineering

Compulsory registration for engineering has been introduced in my state, and, although well intended, it is ill conceived and a backward step for engineering and the community.

There have been some disasters - e.g., the collapse of one of the buildings in the Christchurch earthquake - that showed the need for qualified engineers, but others - such as the collapse of the Westgate bridge during construction - show that there is more to this than just being an engineer.

The government has been poorly advised, and I have to say the communication I've received from one body makes me think this is about elitism and ego ("maintaining engineering's prestige") than community safety or quality of work.

A few more points:

• getting a degree is a licence to start learning. Having got that licence to start learning, people have different talents and abilities, and some will be good, others not; 
• staying up to date can be important - for example, changes in legislation, changes in design tools. I am already registered in one of the voluntary engineering schemes, and under that I have to do  150 hours/year of continuing professional development (when I've been audited, the actual number is around 400 hours/year). The fact is, owing to my specialisation, 70% of that is utter rubbish - it is irrelevant, and some fundamentals DO NOT CHANGE; 
• UNIVERSITIES ARE NOT THE SOLE CREDIBLE SOURCE OF ACCURATE, TRUSTWORTHY KNOWLEDGE: UNIVERSITIES ARE NOT THE SOLE CUSTODIANS AND ARBITERS OF KNOWLEDGE (although I want to make it clear that they are CORRECT about the climate crisis!); 
• I mentioned specialisation. This is a major aspect of the problem, and one of the engineering organisations I am thinking of in particular thinks that once you have a degree, you must remain up to date and capable in all aspects of that degree. THAT IS NOT HOW ENGINEERING JOBS WORK! If you want to call yourself an engineer of that qualification, fair enough, but I actually don't: what matters to me is the area I have specialised in, and I don't give a rat's arse about the other areas; 
• in my four decades of practice, my experience is that there are two main threats to doing good, competent and safe work: 

1. the focus on money, and drive for profit, which has led to inadequate time for thinking, understaffing (glitzed up as "being agile", but it is just understaffing), and pressure to focus on limits of Contracts rather than good service or what is good for the community (incidentally, the organisation I am registered with has a code of conduct that includes focus on community wellbeing: a lot of engineers think that doesn't apply because they're not members; not so, it is likely to be relied upon by courts in a legal matter as an indication of reasonable expectations of professional standards); 
2. getting proper checks of work. This is also impaired by understaffing, resulting in not enough people being available (it can take me 4 hours to find someone to do a 2 hour check), the time pressure of the profit motive leading to inadequate time or too much stress to properly take a step back and THINK, and the incompetence of some engineers - not in terms of professional competence, but in terms of thinking that the advantage of engineering is that it can do things more cheaply than others, which is utter BS. (There are, on that aspect, also a lot of engineers who are incompetent at human interactions. That doesn't mean "they're on the [autism] spectrum", it means that they are incompetent at being human beings. Conversely, there are also some who are outstanding as humans.) This where the Westgate bridge went wrong; this is where there is room for improvement in the profession, and in terms of community oversight;

• unlike the AMA, this will be administered by a government bureaucracy who may know nothing about engineering: that is inherently going to be a problem;
• there are also transphobic aspect to this, if the regulations require testamurs, but that is a topic for another post.It may not happen, but given how ineptly the rest of this process has gone, I wouldn't bet on it.

There is more to write on this topic, but I will end it here so I can think - in many more sleepless nights after I wake feeling sick with the ongoing uncertainty and fear this act of utter stupidity has created - about other ways I can support my family.

While I am thinking on that, I am also thinking on the fact that, after about three decades of trying, bosses have finally succeeded in their ongoing attempts (especially under Kennett) to turn workers - employees, which is what most engineers are - into contractors, taking on the risk that bosses - who drive the overwork, stress, inadequate time and inadequate resources and inability to get checking done - should wear, and they have done it with the accedance of a party that is supposed to be for workers . . .

More evil from John Howard and the neoliberals

It now turns out that, contrary to the narrative we were sold at the time, that Australia's neoliberal government was NOT supportive of East Timor's quest to break free of the highly abusive Indonesian occupation - see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-29/declassified-us-intelligence-documents-sheds-light-timor-leste/11459284.

No wonder Australia's government took such a hardline over the Timor Sea gas field - and, given their aggression towards "Witness K" and more recent whistleblowers, I can only conclude with:

What else are they hiding?

It would be easy to include the mandarin (secretary) of the ultra-right hyper-big Home Affairs Department in this diatribe, but his actions were unprofessional and inappropriate (in pub parlance: "stupid") to the extent that he should resign or be sacked. He has also worked for the ALP over his long years of service, but he has consistently been hardline in his attitudes, and fails to see the broader damage that he is doing (e.g., to access to information that voters need to make informed decision). So he's . . . unwise, not evil.

Meanwhile, I am times wonder, in moments of despair, if the ideologues of the neoliberal party are trying to kill older people to reduce having to pay pensions? Their viciousness and unwillingness to show charity, consideration or compassion is known well through things like the appalling abuses of robodebt, expectations of single parents on social security, cut backs to workers that have destroyed consumer confidence, tests and controls of those on social security (see, for instance, here), attacks on health care for anyone who isn't rich, refusal to address increasing inequality or declining housing affordability, and things like extending the working age but - by not addressing things like worker insurance, which other governments are addressing for groups like building inspectors, not making it possible to get jobs!

Older Australians are being left at serious risk of health problems for a range of reasons - including mortgage stress.

So, as I asked . . . are they trying to get out of pensions by killing us off?

(The reality is they're not, but they are so stupid about what they are doing that they may as well be.)

The harms of discrimination

I recently wrote that:

I also consider that China's future pathway to economic growth and development is inherently tied to freeing her people from the current thought control, allowing dissent and discussion, and taking advantage of the new concepts and currents that are brought to light by that - just as allowing minorities full participation in a nation's life frees those resources to contribute economically, intellectually, politically, culturally, and socially.

Here in the West, our biggest problem is discrimination against minorities and anyone who challenges our parentally-propagated biases or other social conditioning or is "different" - discrimination that robs us of so much (particularly economically), in addition to actively causing harm, discrimination that I also ran into yet again yesterday . . .

A plug for "Knowing Better"

The YouTube channel "Knowing Better" has an excellent episode ("Denying Your History") on the lead up to, events of, and significance of the Armenian genocide - and modern Turkey's refusal to admit the genocide happened.

If you want to know more about the origin of the term  genocide (which led to the Convention), see Samantha Power's "A Problem from Hell" (Pub. Harper, 2010, ISBN 978-0007172993, Amazon).

China

I'm going to begin this by pointing out that China's claim on the South China Sea - which I consider unjustifiable and unreasonable - predates communism in that nation. My recollection is that the infamous "nine dash" line goes back to around 1908 or so - at least.

To expand that point, China has been around for millennia - when I was working in Viêt Nám in the mid-90s, local history was a point of particular pride, going back a millennia or so to one, if not the, earliest universities, and the struggle against Chinese influence was a key part of that history.

Here in the West, many people seem to know of China's struggle against the Mongols in the 1200s; if they are - and it is painful to have to use this word - particularly aware, they may also know of the West's massive, violent, and invasive disruption by forcing opium into China's sovereign territory, and compelling China to sacrifice her right to sovereignty by entering into international agreements that she didn't want to.

In the annals of claims for compensation against the West, the degradation, despair and dissolution caused by the West in China is as worthy as claims for the losses (of life and land, and to culture and spirituality) caused to indigenous people in Australia and elsewhere, from India for the devastation to her economy, those descended from slaves, all of Africa, and South America - where the theft by Britain of silver stolen by Spain was a significant moment in Britain's development of empire.

I don't think those claims will ever be considered by a court, and I don't know that there is an adequate monetary compensation that can be realistically paid (although there are MANY other amends that can be provided - beginning with an admission and apology, and ongoing support to help offset the harm done), but that is a topic for another post - os set of posts, more likely.

In China's case, as I've read elsewhere, she is in the position to say that the last couple of centuries are a "bad time", but that she is now coming out of that.

Most of the analysis of China's actions of late have tended to focus on the role of the Communist party, and that is unquestionably significant - particularly when it comes to China's active suppression of human rights in her own territory (I don't consider Tibet to be Chinese territory, by the way - they threw China out in 1912, just as the USA threw the British out in 1776 and the Filipinos threw the Spanish out in 1898 [which was ignored by the USA and Spain]). However, there are, I consider, cultural aspects that also need to be considered.

The first is Chinese concepts around harmony. Notwithstanding the warping influence of communism, my opinion is that there are some fairly old, almost Confucian ideas still present. Some of these influences are present in the details of the social compact that the Chinese communist party is trying to force onto the Chinese people - for the purposes of thought control, not harmony, incidentally.

More significantly in terms of international relations, there seems to be a tendency to consider that the "bigger" automatically deserve deference - and thus China, as a bigger (more populous, bigger economy, bigger military, etc) nation than the others around the South China Sea, she "deserves" - in the Chinese viewpoint - favourable consideration on the matter of the South China Sea.

However, the other nations involved are mostly more inclined to consider this from the point of view of justice (except for the Philippines, where despot Duterte seems to now be aligning with realpolitik). I have the impression that this is a mind-numbing shock to the worldview and sensibilities of some Chinese that is akin to the reaction of conservatives in the West to the beginning of abolition and racial equality movements, the beginning of the women's equality movement, the 1960s counterculture movement, and so on.

Now, in the West, reactionary conservative dotards (some of whom were in the various groups that greater rights were being sought for - which is why anti-abortion movements include misogynistic women) eventually adapted and moved on - to varying extents.

China, the land of so many innovations (such as Confucianism), inventions (e.g., gun powder) and famous writing, does not lack for intelligence (when I was working there in the mid and late 90s, the local engineers were very intelligent, but were just lacking experience), and thus her words and methods have been somewhat adapted to the new international regime that has developed since World War (part) Two . . . but she stills sees herself as a "big" nation, and thus inherently deserving of favourable consideration - or, at the very least, respect.

My view is that, just as all people deserve respect, all nations also equally deserve respect, and that no nation has to right to expect others to accede to their "requests" or positions (an attitude sadly lacking from my nation's climate change denying dinosaurs in the recent Pacific forum).

Now I want to move on to the thought that actually prompted me to write this post in the first place: China's millennia long history of being renowned business people.

China is not the only nation with such a reputation - back in the Middle Ages, the Greeks were renowned for their business prowess, and going back to before the Roman Empire, the Phoenicians had the same sort of reputation.

China is probably the only nation with a millennia long such reputation - except for the last couple of centuries, where the British used military-technological power to force damaging agreements onto many nations, regions and areas.

To a minor extent, China's Belt and Road Initiative has its origins in China's economic history - but the current manifestation is being warped by (a) China's desire to regain the prestige stolen from her by the West, and (b) the oppressive mindset of the Chinese communist party.

if we consider, for instance, the loans made to Pacific nations by China:

• Chinese political views see the provision of such loans as a means to reassert / regain Chinese power / prestige, but
• Chinese business sensibilities sees no problem with enforcing the commercial conditions of the loans.

Unfortunately, human rights developments over the last few centuries (particularly the last seven decades), combine with fear of the hardline nature of the Chinese communist party, put a different slant on this matter in the West.

Those of us in the West who care about people (not all who live in the West - see my preceding comment about Australian dinosaurs) would rather see such developments made by grants, rather than by crushing a free nation into subservience.

We also see the issues of Hong Kong and Taiwan through the lenses of human rights and freedom, and consider that, just as conservatives in the West have been forced to mostly adapt (except for reactionary dotards like pOTUS45), consider that China also needs to update her path to international respect - including ceasing interference in other nations, which is particularly egregious given China's complaints about milder versions of human rights interest that she receives.

I also consider that China's future pathway to economic growth and development is inherently tied to freeing her people from the current thought control, allowing dissent and discussion, and taking advantage of the new concepts and currents that are brought to light by that - just as allowing minorities full participation in a nation's life frees those resources to contribute economically, intellectually, politically, culturally, and socially.

PS - unlike Soviet communism, Chinese communism does not seem to have been particularly expansionary to date, beyond historical claims such as the South China Sea, and the vengeance meted out against Tibet for their resistance to intrusion by the Long March. That may change in the future: if it does, historical perceptions about China's status are likely to be as significant, albeit unacknowledged, as any intellectual arguments, 

*****

I was going to populate this with links, but my energy levels have not recovered enough to do so. I am also contemplating a similar article on how Australia should react to China. A recent article suggested we do more to provide for our own defence on and near our continent: I support that, but more as an issue of national maturity, than as an action to address Chinese influence. The Chinese influence here that we need to consider is "soft power" - especially on Chinese expats and students. 

Reading

I'm currently reading - amongst quite a few other books - Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" (Penguin, 2009, ISBN 978-0141043722), about Abraham Lincolns politically astute rise to power and (when I get to it) his presidency (I know part of the book inspired the film "Lincoln", but I haven't got that far yet). Something that has struck me is how Lincoln acheived the nomination as Republican candidate by (a) not annoying people, and (b) planning to be everybody's second choice.

I'm also struck by the importance of "not annoying" others by the experience of a reformed white supremacist, who said not being hardline against him helped him to change, and the writings of Paul K Chappell, who I've mentioned previously (e.g., here). In “The Art of Waging Peace” (pub. Prospecta Press, reprint 2015, ISBN 978-1632260314 [Amazon]), Mr Chappell - in a section on listening, and how the target is to change the position of enough people, not all people - quotes the following comment by Leslee Goodman on how Mr Chappell was able to change the mind of a pro-war person:

"I had lost patience with one such person after ten minutes of unproductive dialogue. The Chappell showed up. He respectfully engaged my critic for a full forty-five minutes. Their conversation ended with the man thanking Chappell for listening to him and accepting a copy of [his book] The End of War. A few weeks later Chappell ran into the man and learned that he had read the book and had changed his mind about war as a means of ending terrorism."

So . . . outrage - personally satisfying though it is for dealing with the frustrations and trauma of living under bigotry, hate and backwardness - may not help make the world a better place . . .

I'm not ready for that level of objective engagement as yet, but I've decided to work at it :)

Apparently Ms Goodwin's book inspired Barack Obama to get involved with politics. I wonder how my life might have gone if I'd come across something like this as a teenager, or even a decent inspiration instead of living under Queensland's evil "Great Flying Peanut" and his gerrymander . . .

Ah well, I will do what I can with what I have and where I am - beginning right after I and my family all get over the most debilitating flu I've ever experienced :)

It has been interesting seeing the internal political processes in the party I have joined. If I can keep my health together, I'll probably have another go at getting elected to a role in a couple of years. In the meantime, policy committees remain my primary interest.

A commentary on today's appeal court decision

The Appeals Court of my home state has rejected an appeal by a well-known neochristian figure against his conviction for child abuse. Child abuse victims - including the one at the centre of this case - and supporters / allies have welcomed this decision, split 2-1 though it was, but there is a possibility of an appeal to Australia's High Court (partly because of the split), so the matter has not been resolved.

The decision has brought a few things to mind for me.

Firstly, irrespective of the outcome of any further appeals, I do not like the person convicted, but that dislike is not based on any potential child abuse, it is based on his homophobia, transphobia, and dedication to and proselytising of an inhumane interpretation of neochristianity. In fact, I have read articles - long before these charges were laid - where others of his faith were critical of him for similar reasons.

He also, in my opinion, developed an utterly inadequate response to child abuse when it started to become public, but that may have been due to much of the rest of his neochristian church as much as him.

NONE of that means he is a child abuser. I'm aware of some people linking having power to child abuse, but I'm also aware of at least some abusers going out of their way to be personable, which doesn't, in my opinion, apply to this person.

Secondly, I am thinking of the victims - which includes me, although my abuse was not at the hands of religious people. Some religious people, including priests, are also thinking of the victims - see, for instance, here.

For those who need them:

• Lifeline on 13 11 14 
• Kids Helpline on 1800 551 800 
• MensLine Australia on 1300 789 978 
• Suicide Call Back Service on 1300 659 467 
• Beyond Blue on 1300 22 46 36 
• Headspace on 1800 650 890 
• ReachOut at au.reachout.com 

I mentioned that I've been abused (and sexually assaulted). I've done my fair share of being counselled, but today is still stirring up a few things, and one of those is some events at school where I realised, after I watched the film "Spotlight", that I was being "groomed" (the abuse that happened was without prior grooming - and was outside the family). I was fortunate that I realised I felt uncomfortable, and had enough strength of character, stubbornness, or whatever to politely decline any further contact of that nature.

As this trial has been proceeding, I've been wondering whether that person I declined contact with actually committed any abuse, or if I was wrong (I was not wrong to back out of further contact), or if I was a one-off for that person - who, you will notice, I am carefully not giving any identifying information about (as I could be wrong about their intent, and I backed out before anything happened). I've done some internet searching for the person concerned, but without any result, and I suspect I will never know.

That was the third point. The fourth is the vehemence of the well-known person's supporters, who are prepared to disbelieve the jury's assessment. Now, noting that there is a difference between freedom of expression or valid criticism and the unreasonable behaviour known as "scandalising  the  court", that disbelief is not limited to the judicial system, it occurs in many other areas of life, including politics, assessing climate change - even on the issue of whether the earth is flat or round (for the record, I say round).

There are circumstances where such scepticism - aka objectivity-  can be useful - for instance, when considering Russia's infamous "show trials", or Chinese propaganda, or when choosing how to react to something on social media.

The current situation, in my opinion, is not one of those situations.

My standard response when asked about controversial court decisions is along the lines of "I wasn't in court, so I didn't get to see all the evidence and hear the testimony, so I don't know". When it comes to child abuse, however, one of the biggest problems is not believing the victims - a point made very eloquently in "Spotlight", and something I have knowledge of from my life as well (although not directly).

My opinion is that this person's supporters need to recognise that there are two matters they are possibly conflating: their feelings about the person, and their feelings about their faith - which is bigger than any one priest. It may help them to acknowledge and meditate on that. If I can separate my dislike for the person concerned from the charges before the courts, they can do the same for their like.

People are complex creatures - after all, even the truly evil John Howard did some good with the national gun laws. I don't consider the person whose appeal was rejected today has done anything to offset anything, but his supporters do. Maybe they should also reflect on the complexity of humans as well.

In memorium - and an exhortation to engage

The following extracts are from selected emails I’ve written over the years to a former member of my home state’s Parliament (the Legislative Assembly) when I lived in her electorate. Her passing, two years ago this week, was early and untimely.

I’ve corrected some of the typos.

(Also, please note that I have written many other emails on these matters, but to other Members of Parliament.)

My main personal reason for this post is a sense of mourning; however, it may help to show others that there is a point to engaging – politely and constructively (which can be difficult when you're frustrated, but does lead to better outcomes) - with your elected representatives. My correspondence was not the only, or even of any particular significance, on these issues, but there were changes on some of these matters - not always as timely or as far as I wished, but enough to show me the value of being engaged - and that engagement has, partly as a result of other positive experiences with politicians, led to me joining a political party, albeit more to the left than this particular MLA.

Some of our correspondence was hard copy, which allowed us to, for instance, share a love of walking barefoot (with a reply having my typed name crossed out and replaced with “fellow barefoot advocate”, for instance).

She wasn’t family, our relationship was too narrowly focused, official and limited to be a friendship, and her politics were more to the right of mine but she accomplished a great deal (especially on domestic violence), was a good elected representative, and  I miss her.

Blessed be, Fiona Richardson.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fiona_Richardson&oldid=903251142
• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/24/fiona-richardson-mp-remembered-as-fearless-advocate-after-death-from-cancer
• https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/an-obituary-for-fiona-richardson/

Housing, including renting and homelessness

13^th November, 2009
re: Housing

Original email:

With respect, I consider that the current approaches to increasing the affordability of housing are fundamentally flawed, and these efforts should be redirected into making rental a socially honourable, more viable, long term option.

I have lived, as a result of a new relationship, in Thornbury for almost two years now. Of late, we have seen, nearby, at least one three bedroom house sold for over a million dollars - I have even seen a rather ordinary TWO bedroom house sold for over $700,000! Now, even if I had 20% of this sort of sales price available as a deposit, there is simply no way I would be allowed to borrow the rest of the sales price, as it well and truly exceeds the three times annual gross income rule that reputable financial institutions often limit borrowings to.

For housing in this area to become affordable to me and my family, prices would have to probably halve - and the highest projection of price falls I have come across is 30%, with most being substantially less than that.

Please keep in mind that my day job is as an engineer, so I’m paid more than the average wage. I shudder to think how prices like this affect people on lower incomes.

Maybe we could move out to an outer suburb - prices are slightly lower there, but that involves real problems:

• we are a one driver, one car family, and the public transport in outer areas does not compare favourably with our current access (access to health services is important - which I will come back to in this email)
• my partner’s children are studying, and it would be disruptive to their development for such a major relocation (to reach a region of affordable housing, the move would be a major distance), and this is particularly an issue as one child experienced major problems as a result of extreme bullying, and we have now finally found a good, supportive school.

There are other issues as well, such as loss of long established social networks - which give many people’s lives meaning. It is not just a case of move and find new friends: existing, established social networks often involve being part of not for profit movements that give a sense of purpose and meaning to life.

I consider there are also social justice and equity issues about pushing people out of areas, but I will leave those for some other occasion.

We are basically in a situation where our only viable option is to rent. That in itself is bad enough, given the high rents in this area (having moved here from Frankston North, I actually consider the rents horrendous).

Apart from high rents, however, the main problem with renting is the basic situation itself.

I am not a child, and the owner/agent is not my parent, yet I have to ask permission to do something as simple as put in a water tank, or a vegie patch, or get a pet fish, bird or cat.

In fact, our current owner is particularly poor: apart from maintenance not being done (my partner spent two years without heating, our oven door is broken and has not been fixed - and we have given up bothering to report things like door handles that fall to pieces), the owner had the trees and bushes in the front yard which gave us privacy and shade cut down at the start of last year’s summer. This idiotic act has increased the temperature of our house by 5-10degrees C - and, as my partner has a heart complaint, I consider this action has directly put her health and wellbeing at risk. (My attitude to this was not helped by hearing the real estate agent compliment the owner on “tidying” the place up - and an implication that suggested the owner personally came and mowed our lawns!)

There are relatively low cost things which could be done to make the house more liveable: I could have external blinds/awnings installed over the windows, for instance, but that involves:

1. me having to beg for permission to make an improvement;
2. the risk of the owner increasing rent; and
3. a loss of return on my expenditure if the owner decides to boot us out.

So the end result is, we all lose out. The owner misses out on a potential improvement to her house, my partner’s health remains at elevated risk, and we have to put up with living in a stinking sweat box (the current prolonged heat wave has, perhaps not surprisingly, led to me finally deciding to write this email).

I also have to point out that the heat in this house (we cannot even open windows at night to let the cool air in because of lack of maintenance making the windows immovable and/or lack of screens) has impaired my sleep, and hence my productivity. I suspect that happens to many workers who are stuck with restrictive rental situations.

In my opinion, the fundamental attitude to rental needs to change.

Renters are NOT all people who want to rip the owner off, damage property, or people who are just doing this temporarily before they get a mortgage. Issues such as the lack of realistic affordability of housing has made rental a life long style of accommodation for MANY people. In my opinion, we as a society need to rethink the laws accordingly, and also change attitudes.

My understanding is (from a recent ABC Radio National programme) that European approaches to rent allow people who are renting to have the dignity of having the right to make small changes to their home. Perhaps, in Europe, I would be able to install the external blinds, or put in the vegie patch, and know I would have some right to tenure as a result.

Given our current water crisis, my desire to put in a water tank at my cost (which also requires changes to plumbing, and hence owner permission - which I consider unlikely to come, given their past attitudes), would surely be of some merit.

I would, with a water tank, propose to take the tank with me, and return the plumbing to its original state, should we leave. Something I would also consider is contributing towards the cost of insulation, but I would want some way that our expenditure could be shifted to our next rented house (perhaps by me making the payment into a fund, which then helped owners make environmentally and occupier friendly changes?). Surely that, given our current concerns around climate change, is also of some merit?

Major changes, such as extensions/demolitions/renovation are obviously (to me, at any rate) not part of this.

The issue of having some fundamental respect for renters is, however, a key part of this.

I am aware that there are legal options available to force the owner to undertake repairs. A major concern for us there, however, is the very real prospect of vengefulness on the part of the owner. More fundamentally, I don’t want to have to be forced into an adversarial situation as a way of resolving problems: I would rather a cooperative, mutually respectful approach, where our inherent value and worth as people, and our values and desires for a reasonable lifestyle, despite being renters, are respected.

As a final point, I would like to draw your attention to a different health issue: the general prohibition on pets. The health benefits of having pets, particularly for older or isolated people, are fairly widely known. In my opinion, if we had been able to get a pet, that would have helped my partner’s daughter when she was struggling with the bullying and isolation at home. I am aware that some pets can cause problems (one house I moved in to had a flea infestation from previous renters that was so severe one of my grandchildren cried from the bites when she went into a room we hadn’t cleared of fleas yet), but maybe things like bonds need to be enforced for actual damage in such cases (rather than being occasionally used to get renters to do cleaning). More fundamentally, the owner’s house is supposed to be our home, and pets are often an important part of managing stress, loneliness and quality of life. There may be some cultural clashes on the issue of pets between owners and renters, but there can be no argument about the health costs of preventing access to pets for some people.

What are the costs to the economy of loss of productivity and health problems arising from current restrictive, outmoded attitudes to renting? What are the costs to the environment, including attempts to use water more responsibly, of the same restrictive, outmoded attitudes to renting?

(Although I couldn’t find a specific reply, this email was the first in a long series of emails – now superceded by me joining a political party and working towards getting on to the relevant policy committee on these matters.)

9^th February, 2010
Re: Homelessness

Original email:

A couple of hours ago, while my partner and I were returning from a fundraising event, we stopped to have a late meal in High Street. While walking from our car to the shop, we noticed an elderly man, looking somewhat unkempt, with a shopping bag. He wasn’t going anywhere, or doing anything in particular, just sitting, maybe watching the crowd go by - a crowd who, other than the two of us, seemed completely and utterly oblivious to this man. In fact, at one stage, he evidently heard some people talking about sitting on a bench, and since his was the only one in the area, he stood up before they approached to leave the seat vacant. Fairly clearly he was innocuous, and seemed most probably homeless. We slipped him some money - unasked for: he wasn’t begging, and he seemed quite pleased to receive it, but as we drove home, it seemed such a small thing to do, and we felt it would be nice to do more.

I have only lived in this area for a couple of years, and still have not learned of all the resources which may be available here. I knew of some of the resources in Frankston - some formal, others not. For example, a friend of mine in Frankston used to search the streets late at night to find homeless people, and would find somewhere to house them overnight (one of those homeless people actually later married a friend of mine).

Are there any resources which are available in the Northcote area that I can refer homeless people to - particularly late at night?

I would appreciate your advice - including any contacts you may care to suggest I communicate with.

Post script to original email:

As a late post script, I wish to make it clear that this is NOT a request for measures such as police patrols to move homeless people on. We are interested in solving this problem constructively and realistically.

One interesting comment my partner made this morning is that this person’s situation is a stark contrast to reports in the local paper about million dollar housing sales.

I look forward to your reply.

Reply from MLA:

It is my pleasure to assist humanitarians like yourself and your partner.

I suggest you contact North East Housing in Preston (ph:9479 0700) or HomeGround in Collingwood (ph 9417 2500) for further information. They are part of the newly established Northern Metro Homeless Network which is a 24 hour service to assist the homeless (ph 1800 825 955) in and around Northcote and Thornbury.

All the best.

1^st September, 2014
Re: A Fairer Deal for Renters

Original email:

I, along with a sizeable portion of the voting population of Victoria, am a renter, and, short of winning Tattslotto (which will be difficult, given that I rarely buy any tickets), will be a renter for the rest of my life. Owing to my age and a few other factors I have had to contend with in my life, I am not - and have never been - in the position of being able to buy a house, and no matter how effective any measures are to make housing ‘more affordable’, my age - and some health problems - mean I don’t have enough working life left for any sort of mortgage.

I am, therefore, particularly interested in the current situation of renting being made fairer to renters.

I am properly informed as to the current laws in this regard, and am aware of the various tribunals etc, and I am also aware of the real world aspects of all this. Please do not send me more information on this, which is the galling response some inattentive people I have written to in the past on this topic have made. What I would like is the opportunity to bring some real life perspectives to your consideration of the situation.

As an example, the owner of the house (note that I will not refer to it as a home) I currently rent has, on several occasions, cut down shade trees. As a result, the house is substantially hotter, and that places my partner, who has a heart condition, at increased risk of severe problems during one of Melbourne’s hot spells. (Which is somewhat ironic, given the two year period that the owner refused to replace the heating - and we have never had the money to do that ourselves and deduct the money from rent, apart from not wanting to to install a system that the owner possibly didn’t want on a long term basis.)

As another example, I know of a family whose teenage daughter had mental health problems. To cope with these, they took a gamble and bought the daughter a dog. They didn’t approach the owner for permission, because of the owner’s past behaviour on a range of issues. Their strategy worked: the daughter did not commit suicide, and has now moved out (with her dog) to a rental accommodation where a more enlightened owner allowed pets.

If they had asked for permission to have a pet and been refused, the consequences could have been severe - and moving is not easy for people to do, particularly under such circumstances. I suspect this is also an issue for people with limited social connection (e.g. due to limited mobility) - getting a pet can potentially be quite beneficial to mental heath, but asking has risks and fears around future retribution, or may come with costs that are unaffordable (particularly if one is on a pension), which is counter to mental health.

I also personally find house inspections undignified, offensive and an invasion of my privacy - and particularly so when the real estate agents seem to focus on housework or the renter is choosing to live their life, rather than the condition of the structure. I also know other women who have endured problems such as real estate agents rifling through their underwear drawers (allegedly in search of drugs) during such inspections.

I have also had personal property stolen when a house I was renting was opened for inspection prior to a sale. I know of other renters who have found strangers wandering - unescorted - through their house or flat during such periods, those people having been given access by the real estate agent without prior notice to the renter.

All in all, renting a house under current conditions is not conducive of good health nor enjoyment of life.

I would therefore like to suggest that some consideration be given to improving this situation.

I am aware that some renters do appalling things to rental property, but not all of us are like that. Maybe the solution rests in allocating some sort of risk scale to renters, akin to the ratings assigned to car insurance: those who have been problematic or have not proven themselves are subject to greater restrictions, whereas those who have a history of good treatment of rental property are allocated a reduced risk and thus greater entitlement to do small things like put in a vegetable garden, or get pets.

I suspect much of the problem around rental is that the laws were prepared with the view that it would be only young people who rented, for a few years, and then everyone would move into a purchased house. That clearly is not the real situation (and I note recent reports - see here - that the RBA has stated people are better off financially renting, so rental is not likely to change), and I have to ask, does a sixty year old with a lifetime’s history of looking after rental properties well and who wants a quiet retirement, really have to be subjected to the same restrictions and scrutiny as an 18 year old who has just moved out of home and wants to party?

As a final point, I would like to say that I know some owners and real estate agents are good, decent people with an interest in the welfare of their renters. As an example, the current real estate agent our (flawed) owner uses has a policy for smoke alarms to be inspected annually: we’ve just had our first such inspection, and the person doing this (a) was polite and pleasant (not all are), and (b) moved our smoke alarm to comply with current requirements. I’ve heard of other owners even doing things like offering small gifts for payment of rent on time for a year.

If only they were all like that. I know there have been attempts to identify such owners in the past (or, more accurately, to identify problem owners such as the one I currently endure) which have not been continued. Maybe there is a need for some way for recording of problems against owners, so that people who rent have some sort of chance of avoiding the bad ones until those owners lift their game.

I look forward to hearing of a solution which is of interest to the renting voters of Victoria at the next election. Europe has a fairer situation: why can’t we?

Reply:

Thank you for contacting me about tenancy and private rental issues. I apologise for my delay in responding.

Your email raises many issues, but it also assists in providing meaningful insights into the practical issues renters face on a daily basis.

Labor believes that the provision of more secure, affordable and appropriate housing in the private rental market is essential. The 2014 Victorian Labor Party Platform outlines a number of key areas that we as a Party are committed to. For your information, I have reproduced the provisions of our Platform dealing with tenancy and private rental below:

Labor will:

• Review and strengthen the Residential Tenancy Act and Residential Tenancies Regulations to ensure effective consumer protection and improved housing standards
• Ensure that a review of the Residential Tenancy Act and Residential Tenancies Regulations examines reforms to specifically: Mandate a standard tenure of leases to be offered in the market environment under normal circumstances
• Encourage greater length and security of tenure
• Ensure access to transparent and independent mechanisms for reviewing rental increases
• Strengthen maintenance regimes for rental properties
• Reform minimum standards for rental properties to improve water and energy efficiency standards
• Outlaw the practice of rental bidding or rental auctions
• Work with all levels of Government to encourage greater investment in affordable rental housing, increasing the supply of homes available for private rental across a diverse range of sizes and locations
• Review and strengthen the regulation for tenure in relocatable housing and caravan parks
• Ensure that public housing tenants are not discouraged from social and economic participation by the prospect of immediate rent rises when their income increases

Rest assured, as a Party, Labor is committed to a fairer deal for renters.

Thanks again for raising these issues with me.

Kind regards

3^rd June, 2015
Re: Privacy for Renters

Original email

Re: Request for respect of privacy (including religious privacy) of tenants

The proposal to allow landlords to enter rented properties without permission for the sake of taking photographs is utterly appalling, and continues the denigration of renters that is too common in society.

Apart from the threats to safety which has already resulted from such actions, I have had thefts whilst places I have been renting have been inspected for sale.

Furthermore, as a Pagan, I have a home altar. This is a sacred place: to have others taking photos or possibly meddling with it is unacceptable.

If this appalling proposal gets up, my only recourse would be to keep all my possessions under lock and key in what is supposed to be my own home!!!

I would also have to install a home camera system.

If this proposal is passed, given the correspondence I have had with the Member, I would be appalled.

The URL of the article I read on this is: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/push-to-give-landlords-right-to-enter-properties-and-take-photos-slammed-20150526-gh9y3t.html

Reply

Thank you for your email. Everyone, whether they be tenants or homeowners, should be entitled to privacy in their own home. I will forward your email through to the Victorian Minister for Housing for a response. Hopefully we can both get the response we are seeking.

8^th March, 2017
Re: Congratulations on Initiatives on Affordable Housing

It is my opinion that the current era is, other than times of war and the Great Depression, one of the hardest times to be in public office - largely owing to the massive societal changes as a result of technology, environmental issues, and violent extremism. Given that, it is particularly pleasing to see that you have been courageous and principled enough to take such strong, committed and widespread action towards more affordable - and better - housing.

I will continue to advocate for Victorians who are not homeless to also have the option of building smaller, more affordable, less environmentally impactful homes, but I also wish to make a point of acknowledging the tremendous advances that you have made for all current and future Victorians.

Thank you.

Initiatives:

• http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/20-million-to-upgrade-more-of-victorias-rooming-houses/;
• http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/stamp-duty-abolished-for-first-home-buyers-under-600000/;
• http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/putting-first-home-buyers-first/;
• http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/first-home-owner-grant-to-double-in-regional-victoria/;
• http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/long-term-security-for-tenants-and-landlords/;
• http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/5-million-palliative-care-boost-to-support-more-victorians-to-die-at-home/;
• and past initiatives, particularly http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/a-road-map-for-more-affordable-housing/.

21^st February, 2017
Re: WA has beaten us

Never in my worst nightmare would the possibility of Western Australia beating my home state of Victoria on an issue of progressiveness occur to me, and yet, sadly, that is exactly what has happened: WA is now allowing “tiny homes” - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/house-blocks-shrink-to-80-square-metres-in-perth/8287902.

As I have written in prior communications, tiny homes:

• immediately reduce price, and thus improve affordability;
• reduce environmental impacts, both in the form of embedded GHGs and by having a smaller space to heat or cool;
• enable better adaptation to smaller household sizes, whilst still allowing people access to some (personal) green space (I avoid parks unless they are empty for safety reasons - i.e., to avoid the sort of comments etc that stopped me running or walking around Albert Park Lake, which is near my workplace, many years ago); and
• are able to be built nicely (as per the architect designed example I included in a prior email).

Furthermore, as the sandgropers have shown, the obstacles can be overcome.

This does not suit everyone - which I know from the time I spent living on a 24’ yacht in the 1990s, just as I know it DOES suit some of us, and it would be a wonderful thing if those of us who it does suit were able to contribute to lowering house prices and environmental impacts by doing so.

Trans and Gender Diverse matters

17^th March, 2009
Re: Implementation of HREOC recommendations regarding documents of identity

I note that the HREOC’s recently released recommendations on gender diversity (see http://www.hreoc.gov.au/genderdiversity/sex_files2009.html) include a Recommendation 7 to the effect that “Documents of identity and processes required for the legal recognition of sex should not reveal personal information about a person’s past identity in relation to sex”.

Although HREOC is a Commonwealth body, I would like to bring this recommendation in particular to your attention, as I consider the policy of the Victorian Births, Deaths and Marriage Registry with respect to name changes are not consistent with the Equal Opportunity Act (specifically, provisions regarding prohibition of discrimination on the basis of the protected attribute of gender identity), and I had intended to raise this at a later date, on the basis of using the Victorian Human Rights Charter to initiate a discussion, but may as well do so now.

The concern I have is the requirement for all previous names used since 1986 (the year may not be this year exactly) listed on the change of name documentation. This means that any person who had transitioned since that year, and wished to undertake the process known as “name harmonisation” (something which is almost a necessity, since the imposition of strict security regimes following “9/11”) can NOT do so without exposing themselves to the risks that being identified as trans may incur (because names inconsistent with the current gender would also be listed). Apart from anything else, such requirements may force trans people into discussing past, personal medical history which is irrelevant, with current employers (who may not have been employers at the time of transition).

Whilst I accept that there may be valid reasons for generally requiring past names to be divulged (eg, working with children checks), I consider that there are ways of dealing with potential concerns, and that such concerns do not outweigh the potential other problems being caused to trans people.

I request your thoughts on how this matter may best be initiated with the Victorian Government’s Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

19^th July, 2009
Re: Review of exemptions to EO Act

Re: Review of exemptions to EO Act

I commend the proposed review of exemptions to the Equal Opportunity Act, as reported in today’s edition of The Age (URL provided after my signature block).

Although I (obviously) have strong religious beliefs, I consider it particularly important that all Victorians have fair and equal access to services provided by the State. That, in my opinion, includes:

• all Victorian children having the right to make their owns decisions about their religious beliefs or lack thereof
• all Victorian children having the right to be raised without being inculcated with utterly unjustifiable biases against minority groups, whether those be other religions, LGBTI people or women
• all Victorians seeking assistance when in distress have the right to be able to seek that help without having to consider “will this group be critical of me because I am ...?”

It will be interesting to see how the review considers the issues of men clubs and women only clubs. In my view, the former are problematic in that they exclude - or potentially exclude women from decision making processes. On the other hand, women only clubs are a chance to give women a reprieve against discrimination and harassment.

I look forward to the review hearings, and hope that all Victorians with an interest in equal opportunity that this chance to make their voices heard, not only “concerned Christians”.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/church-and-state-clash-over-equality-laws-20090718-dozx.html

27^th September, 2009
Re: Proposed changes to EO exemptions

Re: Proposed changes to the Equal Opportunity Act exemptions

I note that a number of changes are proposed to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act exemptions. Whilst the removal of exemptions on the basis of race, disability, age, physical features, political beliefs or activity, or breastfeeding is good, the allowance of continued discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexuality, marital and parental status and gender identity is disappointing - in fact, it is concerning, and raises questions as to how the government will ensure that government services in the areas of schools, hospitals and welfare services will be made available to same sex attracted, bisexual, single and trans people.

It would seem to me that, at the very least, the government would need to undertake an audit of the services made available by such religious bodies, and make sure that, in every area of Victoria, services are realistically available to same sex attracted, bisexual, single and trans people.

Although you are no doubt aware of the article, for convenience the details follow:

“Government bows to religious right”, by Melissa Fyfe, 27^th September, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-bows-to-religious-right-20090926-g76u.html

I look forward to your advice as to how the government will ensure all Victorians have adequate access to government services.

Reply

Thank you for your email regarding the proposed changes to the Equal Opportunity Act.

The Brumby Labor Government would not fund organisations to provide services if they were not going to deliver the services as required (e.g. if an organisation contracted to deliver housing services was only providing housing to heterosexual couple it could not expect to have its contract renewed).

As you would be aware, religious organisations have a strong tradition of providing services to the disadvantaged and vulnerable in the community and the Brumby Government acknowledges the significant contribution made by religious organisations in the welfare sector. The government does not unlawfully discriminate and would expect that those acting on its behalf would also not discriminate. The Brumby Labor Government would take any complaint of discrimination very seriously.

The main issue for religious organisations providing services is around the “types” of services (e.g. abortion) rather than providing it to types of people. This is not a discrimination issue.

Thank you for raising this important issue with me. Rest assured I will bring forward your concerns to the Attorney General.

Older workers

18^th November, 2009
Re: Failure of WorkCover to cover workers aged over 65

Original email

I noticed in an article on today’s online edition of The Age that WorkCover does not cover workers who are aged 65 or over. This is quite concerning to me on a number of grounds:

(1) it would seem to me to constitute age discrimination, and possibly a restraint of trade (under the trade Practices Act)

(2) for the reasons outlined in the article, this is a major obstacle to employers keeping workers on, which - according to the article - will be essential for managing our aging population and, in my opinion, will assist with information transfer to, and mentoring of, younger workers (3) on a personal note, I know I will have to keep working into my 70s for financial reasons, but, if I cannot get WorkCover coverage, how do I do that?

The details of the article are:

“World population growth slowing”, by Tim Colebatch and David Rood November 18, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/national/world-population-growth-slowing-20091117-ikct.html?autostart=1

I look forward to your response and actions.

Reply

Thanks for your email. I will follow up the issues you have raised and get back to you ASAP.

Racism

8^th January, 2014
Re: Racism in Australia

Second email

I wrote to you some time ago regarding the issue of racist attitudes in Victoria, and these have been somewhat to the fore of late, given the terrible knife attacks on Indian students and others. I have listed the URLs of some recent media articles after my signature block.

I am aware, from your reply to my earlier email, that the Victorian Government had initiated some actions with regard to this issue, and I would appreciate an update as to what is happening on that front. in particular, will those plans be revised in light of the recent attacks?

I have to say that, unfortunately, I am aware from personal experience that racism is a problem in Australia: <deleted to protect the guilty>, racism, and I have long regretted every time I heard an activist minimise the extent of such problems - particularly amongst people with less education, which does seem to be an indicator of risk of being racist (it certainly does act as such an indicator in my personal experience). I also cringe when when I read of people, including Indians, trying to deflect attention away from this problem (particularly when trying to make an argument that is, in my opinion, irrelevant regarding risks in another culture: the Indian students are in Australian society, and the risks need to be evaluated with regards to normal risks applying in Australian society, not India.) We do indeed have MANY people in Victoria (and Australia) who are NOT racist, but we also do have people who are. It is arguable whether they are a minority or not, but their existence does, need, in my opinion, to be acknowledged, and the problem dealt with openly, rather than being glossed over.

URLs for some recent, relevant media articles:

Indian TV’s unsound fury January 7, 2010 - 12:00AM: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/indian-tvs-unsound-fury-20100106-lu8y.html

Having streets filled with fear is a frightening way to live January 7, 2010 - 12:00AM: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/having-streets-filled-with-fear-is-a-frightening-way-to-live-20100106-lu8x.html

(I have not tried to list all articles)

Reply to second email

Thank you for your email and it was definitely an unfortunate incident that you witnessed.

Addressing binge drinking and alcohol-related violence is a high priority for the Brumby Government.

As you may be aware, the government is currently trialling a 2 am lockout, which is aimed at reducing the number of people moving between venues late at night and thereby reducing incidents of alcohol fuelled violence and disorder. The VAAP builds on earlier initiatives, including the Government’s 2007 reforms to the Liquor Control Reform Act giving the police the power to ban troublemakers from declared entertainment precincts for 24 hours.

The Labor government is creating community awareness through education to promote respect for Victoria’s diverse communities. Please see the Attorney General’s media release below.

Tuesday, 15^th July 2008

The Springvale Monash Legal Service has been given a $100,000 grant to develop a plan for combating racism in their community.

Deputy Premier and Attorney-General Rob Hulls today visited the service as part of the Brumby Government’s Community Cabinet. He said the grant, which has been made by the Legal Services Board, will be used for research into the development of education tools to teach local youth about human rights and racism issues.

“Our Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities sets out a vision for the way we in Victoria wish to live and be treated,” Mr Hulls said.

“In order to combat racism in the community, we must realise our obligation to teach young people about their human rights and responsibilities, and the effects of racism.

“Education is an important way of promoting respect for Victoria’s diverse communities and ensuring we have a tolerant society.”

The funding will enable the Springvale Monash Legal Service to develop ideas for the ‘Combating Racism, Building Communities’ project over the next year.

The Springvale Monash Legal Service will collaborate with the Western Suburbs Legal Service and the Fitzroy Legal Service as well as community partners.

Together, they will develop a human rights and anti-racism education program for schools in the western, south eastern and inner northern suburbs of Melbourne.

The Legal Service will also develop strategies to counter negative stereotyping of people from different cultural backgrounds and to raise awareness of the challenges they face.

This is the first year the Legal Services Board has run its major grants program for law-related services and projects.

If there is any other matter I can assist you on please do not hesitate to contact me.

Original email

In today’s online edition of “The Age” were two stories concerning bigotry and prejudice in Australia: one about four men who based a Sudanese man, the other about a survey showing concern with respect to the number of refugees in Australia. (The links to these articles are after my signature block.)

These articles reflect an incident I recently witnessed, upon which I have been pondering, trying to determine what to do. The incident happened on Saturday 27^th July, 2008, at around 3pm. I and my partner were driving south along Smith St (I understand Mr Wynne’s electorate office is in Smith St), and as we approached Johnston St (Melway Map 2C, ref D7) I observed a Caucasian male, probably early 30s, shaved head, and wearing a bulky brown “bomber” style jacket, walking round two young Asian men apparently waiting for a bus. The Caucasian was obviously talking to the young men, and spent around a minute or so leaning over them. After this they arose, and moved.

It seemed that the Caucasian male was being abusive. he followed this by smashing a stubby he was drinking from forcefully into the footpath - one young woman around five meters away had either spray or glass fragments hit her leg and turned round, but evidently decided not to risk saying anything. I found somewhere safe to park in Johnston St., and then returned to see the male was still present, in which case I planned to call the police, but he was out of sight.

This incident highlighted two problem areas for me:

(1) racism, further illustrated by the articles in today’s Age, and

(2) public violence fuelled by alcohol.

I appreciate that it is possibly difficult to decide what can be done about such problems, but I consider it vital that we do so. As a suggestion, I can see that, as a long term solution, education of the public with respect to refugees and the effects of alcohol would probably be a good idea. I suspect that educating people is best if it includes other issues which may contribute to problems - for instance, was the Caucasian unemployed and having difficulty finding a job, or drinking to excess because of personal problems? Education at schools on relationships and lifestyle issues may be of help here (I know some education on these topics is provided, but I do not know how comprehensive it is, nor how effectively it is carried out).

The main issue is that the behaviour I witnessed, and the attitudes and behaviour reported in The Age are utterly unacceptable, and consideration needs to be given to addressing the issues behind them.

I look forward to your responses.

Most think refugee level is too high

August 5, 2008 - 12:00AM

To view the entire article, click on: http://www.theage.com.au/national/most-think-refugee-level-is-too-high-20080804-3pxs.html

Four admit to bashing Sudanese teen

August 5, 2008 - 12:00AM

To view the entire article, click on: http://www.theage.com.au/national/four-admit-to-bashing-sudanese-teen-20080804-3pxr.html

Institutional memory

25^th February, 2016
re: Institutional Memory

Original email:

I recently came across an “essay” (at more than 10,000 words, it is a bit long for me to readily consider it an essay) by Laura Tingle, titled “How We Forgot How To Govern”, about the loss of institutional memory.

The essay is based on experiences with Commonwealth government, which I have little experience of, and I would be interested in your thoughts as to whether such problems exist - or have existed - in State governments.

To give some personal context to that, as an engineer in the water industry, I saw a massive loss of experience and technical capabilities in some water Authorities as a result of the changes made by Jeff Kennett and, to some extent, I do not consider that the water industry has fully recovered.

On the other hand, I was part of the lobbying (I suppose I should say “community activism”) which led to reforms for the LGBT community 15 years ago (the Human Rights Commission recently published a video on that; unfortunately, for work reasons I wasn’t able to take part in that), and was generally impressed by the capability of the people I worked with during that time (including working on two Ministerial Advisory Committees).

I look forward to your comments, if you care to make any in due course. This is a LOW priority request.

Reply

Thanks for your email and for giving the government credit for its ethics programme in schools! I think it is a step in the right direction that represents our tolerant and secular values.

In terms of thinking regarding “institutional memory” I would have to say that I agree with you. Though I am certain that there are a lot of excellent people who put their best foot forward within our public service, I am sure that the cutbacks of the Kennett years did a lot to degrade the institutional and technical knowledge within the arms of government. It is my hope that we are slowly reversing this brain drain but it will certainly take time to regain a lot of that lost knowledge.

Farewell when move to a different electorate

12^th July, 2016
Re: farewell

Original email

Dear Member for Northcote,

We have now moved to the electorate of [X] (to a house which doesn’t have cracks that let the winter winds whistle through the walls), but I wanted to drop a final note to you thanking you for your replies to my correspondence over the years: I have appreciated having my concerns given genuine consideration.

Thank you, and I wish you well in your ongoing service to the electorate.

Reply

Thank you for all your considered correspondence over the years. I hope you are settling in nicely to your new home.

All the best