Views from Western Australia

This week the WA Govt formally withdrew its appeal against the Federal court’s decision on Native Title over Broome.This is as a result of a negotiated settlement with the native title claimants up there and the rep body was the KLC. This is potentially  a good sign for Noongars prgressing negotiations on the Willcox decision in relation to the ‘Single Noongar Claim’  as the Broome decision has a lot of parallels to the   the Noongar decision.

Top 10 Tips for Successful Blogging

There are no hard and fast rules to blogging, but here are a few handy hints: 

    1) "BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT" (Shakespeare’s Hamlet, 1603): Ideally, a blog should be about 500-800 words.  If you’re tackling an issue that absolutely demands more length, consider developing your ideas across a series of 2 or more blogs.

    2) MAKE IT FRESH: A blog should be an original piece of writing.

    3) TALK OPENLY: Blogs should express a personal opinion, or put forward a position; they are not meant to be impartial.

    4) STEER AWAY FROM ‘PR SPEAK’: Re-hashing a media release or policy statement for a blog is a bad idea. 

    5) NO TOPIC IS TOO SMALL: Some of the best blogs are those which illuminate a small facet of a bigger, more complicated, issue.

    6) BE SPECIFIC: It is good practice to finish a blog with a question or invitation for comment.

    7) ENGAGE WITH YOUR AUDIENCE: If people do honour your blog with a comment, take a few minutes to respond.

    CREATE AWARENESS: Blogs are a great way to provide an informal introduction to more serious, extensive, drier research or material which can be included as a link or attachment at the end. This provides segue for people who want to learn more, and at the very least raises awareness in others.

    9) ATTRIBUTE YOUR SOURCES: It is great to quote other people or sources in blogs, just make sure you reference them (embedding a hyperlink to the original source is best).

    10) SELF-PROMOTE: Keep your intended audience in mind, and don’t expect them to just stumble across your blog in the vast expanse of cyberspace once it is published. Send them a link and invite them to comment.

From Open Forum - Australia

Jeff Beck is one of the three noted guitarists to have recorded with the band TheYardbirds. Rolling Stone ranked him among the elite level of their “100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time.” Much of Beck’s recorded output has been instrumental, and his releases have spanned genres ranging from blues-rock, heavy metal, jazz fusion and (currently) a blend of guitar-rock and electronica Beck has earned wide critical praise and four Grammy awards for Best Rock Instrumental Performance. Beck has guested at scores of sessions with everyone from Stevie Wonder and Buddy Guy to Tina Turner and Mick Jagger.

The Pertth audience was predominantly male and over fifty; with a smattering of females and twenty somethings.  But that does not take anything away from the show.

Jeff Beck is a man of few words. On stage during his first concert in Australia for more than 30 years he uttered exactly 10. At the end of his set he sandwiched the names of his three band members between two thankyous. 

Beck has done it his way. He enjoyed initial success and over the years he’s disappeared and then re-emerged from time to time.
From the opener, 1967 B-side ‘Beck’s Bolero’, to the tender encore ‘Where Were You’, Beck was riveting.

Moving mostly between jazz fusion, driving rock and gentle balladry, gave extended workouts on his cream Fender Strat. His touch was precise on the mostly original tunes. TAKE a crystal glass ringing, a drag car screaming, a logging saw shredding, a power line howling, a steam whistle blowing… These are the live sounds Jeff Beck can conjure from a single guitar; and all are down without a swag of effects pedals.  His standard position is to pick with his thumb, and with the whammy bar resting between his knuckles so he can still reach the volume controls. So much appeared to result from so little effort.

The Beatles’ gem ‘A Day in the Life’ was placed at the end of the main set He closed the set and it demonstrated what he can do with popular classics.

One is left to wonder what those legendary jams he had with Hendrix were like?

Support for Bill
The Australian Council on Smoking and Health (ACOSH) is a non-government organisation whose members comprise some 40 medical, health, community and educational organisations concerned about smoking and health.

ACOSH supports the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill 2008. The measures contained in this Bill will enhance the Tobacco Products Control Act (2006). The Bill will also complement and support other tobacco control initiatives and serve four important purposes, in that it:
• continues the implementation of measures which will reduce smoking in the WA community,
• removes a significant promotional opportunity for tobacco products,
• protects children from the harmful consequences of passive smoking, and,
• reduces the exposure of people to passive smoke in public places and workplaces.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, Western Australia was a leader in tobacco control, both nationally and internationally, with the establishment of the Quit Campaign; introduction of the Tobacco Control Act 1990; establishment of the Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia (Healthway); introduction of policies restricting smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces; and significant increases in State taxes on tobacco products.  This was a period of increased awareness of the harm caused by smoking; increased public support for tobacco control initiatives; increased smoking cessation activity; increased support to smokers wishing to quit smoking; reductions in the consumption of tobacco; reductions in the prevalence and uptake of smoking; reduced exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS); and reductions in youth access to tobacco.

Tobacco remains the largest preventable cause of death and disease and there is an urgent need for action. There is overwhelming evidence not only on the magnitude of the problem, but also on the action that can literally save tens of thousands of lives. Sadly, governmental action has not matched the scale of the smoking epidemic, yet public opinion in recent years has moved dramatically in favour of effective tobacco control. A recent survey of public opinion carried out by the Survey Research Centre at the University of Western Australia showed that there is overwhelming public support for strong action to reduce the tragic toll of death and disease caused by smoking in the areas outlined in this bill.

A recent study demonstrated that more than 8,900 West Australian schoolchildren (6.1%) smoked in the preceding week; this increases with age to 9.5% of 17-year-olds. Half will go on to become long term users and half of those will be killed by their smoking.

While it is well acknowledged that Western Australia has a strong record of achievement, it has become clear that tobacco control in WA is falling behind other States that have moved forward in implementing some of the strategies outlined in this Bill. In order to reinvigorate Western Australian tobacco control and to achieve real reductions in smoking prevalence, it is essential for the government and public health sector to demonstrate a unified and renewed commitment to tobacco control issues.

In May 2003, the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), one of the United Nations’ most widely embraced treaties in order to galvanise global and local action against the tobacco epidemic. The FCTC provides the context for effective policy interventions to neutralise this international killer of millions of people each year. A recently published World Health Organisation report, MPOWER, presents a comprehensive global analysis of tobacco use and efforts in tobacco control. It provides a blueprint for tobacco control activities globally, which reflects and builds on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 

MPOWER consists of six proven policies:
• monitor tobacco use and prevention policies
• protect people from tobacco smoke
• offer help to quit tobacco use
• warn about the dangers of tobacco
• enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship
• raise taxes on tobacco.

In Australia, the Rudd government has established the National Preventative Health Taskforce; its first discussion paper highlights the role not only for individuals in making better health choices, but also for communities, employers, community leaders, workplaces, businesses, industries and all levels of government. The Taskforce released technical papers that focus on the burden of disease associated with tobacco, obesity and alcohol; these papers recommend strategies that will substantially reduce the harm, caused by tobacco and alcohol, to Australian society. In relation to tobacco, the Taskforce noted:
• Over three million people (around 18% of Australians aged 14 years and over) smoke, with almost 2.9 million people smoking on a daily basis.
• Tobacco use is currently the single biggest preventable cause of death and disease in Australia, despite the use of tobacco products being at an historic low following the significant decline from the 1950s. Lung disease, lung cancer, heart attack and stroke are some of the health effects of smoking.
• Smoking rates are rapidly declining among the affluent, but continue to be substantially higher among those with lower levels of education and those living in more disadvantaged areas and among Indigenous people.
• Tobacco use is responsible for 12% of the total burden of disease and 20% of deaths in Indigenous Australians. Smoking resulted in an estimated 15,511 deaths in 2003 and cost the Australian community approximately $12 billion in tangible net costs in 2004–05.

Some of the key actions recommended in the report are to:
• Increase tobacco tax and prevent evasion of duty in order to increase the cost of tobacco products.
• Eliminate all remaining forms of promotion of tobacco including by banning displays at point-of-sale and ensure plain packaging is implemented.
• Tighten and enforce State and Territory legislation to eliminate sales to minors and protect against exposure to second-hand smoking (particularly in workplaces, youth events, cars, and outdoor areas where movement is restricted).
• Change licensing laws so that state and territories license retailers, with no license being made available for sales through vending machines, internet, at hospitality and other social venues.
• Make tobacco use a classifiable element in movies and video games.
• Legislate to ensure full reporting and governmental controls over all tobacco product constituents, additives, emissions, and other aspects of manufacture and design.

The strategies contained in the Bill are consistent with both MPOWER and the key strategies outlined in the National Preventative Health Taskforce technical paper on tobacco. Both papers emphasise that a comprehensive approach in tobacco control is crucial. They reinforce the message that there is a very real concern that if the level of tobacco control loses momentum it is likely that the rate of decline in the prevalence of smoking will be reduced. In addition, COAG recently announced that the Rudd Government will invest $872 million over six years in preventative health, to help keep people well and take pressure off hospitals; a key component of this announcement included the target of “reducing the daily smoking rate from 16.6% to 10% within ten years”.
It is vital that the momentum in tobacco control is maintained to ensure that these targets are attained and that further complementary action is taken.  

Heath Impact of Tobacco
Tobacco use is the single largest cause of preventable death and disease in Australia.   In addition to the 32 conditions listed by Ridolfo and Stevenson in 2001, for which smoking is a known cause of disease (including cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory disease, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome), the US Surgeon General’s Report identifies a number of diseases that were not previously causally associated with smoking. The report concludes that smoking harms nearly every organ of the body, causing many diseases and reducing the health of smokers in general. Among long-term smokers, 1 in 2 will die prematurely from a disease caused by smoking. 

Almost 300,000 West Australian adults still smoke daily or occasionally, and each year an estimated 9,000 children start. Smoking costs WA $2.4 billion a year – equal to half the entire health budget. Tobacco accounts for an estimated 15,500 deaths in Australia each year and is responsible for 80% of all drug-caused deaths. A recent study has estimated that reducing the prevalence of smoking to five per cent, from the current 15 per cent, would save $938 million over 15 years, or $5,600 for each person prevented from smoking.
Tobacco use is not only dangerous to individual smokers; it also results in significant harm for non-smokers. While the primary benefits in reducing smoking relate to health, reductions in the use of tobacco have the potential to improve mental health and well being, family cohesiveness, productivity in the workplace, and to reduce demand on the welfare system.

The 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows the proportion of the Australian population aged 14 years and over who smoked daily declined from 19.5% in 2001 to 16.6%. For Western Australia the prevalence was 14.8% for people who reported smoking daily. Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go and good evidence that significant further reductions are feasible; for example, the prevalence of daily smoking in California is currently 8.8%. To reach prevalence of daily smoking lower than 9% by 2020, smoking rates in Australia would need to reduce over the next 12 years by the same percentage as they have decreased in California over the past 12 years.

Inevitably there will be some opposition to the ‘Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill 2008’ from tobacco interests and their traditional allies such as the Australian Hotels Association. Clearly, they have little interest in supporting the health measures outlined in this Bill. In the past their arguments against measures such as smokefree hotels and clubs have included exaggerated claims that they would causer irreparable damage to the hospitality industry. The reality is that both the industry and smokers adjust in response to the smoke free laws, which are welcomed by smokers and others.

Specific Issues

Display of Tobacco Products
ACOSH has long been concerned about the positioning and display of cigarettes in retail outlets. In most cases cigarettes occupy the most valued position in the store: behind the cash register or sales point. This maximises their accessibility and profile. They are often located near confectionery items, providing a false sense of their potential danger.

The tobacco industry uses point-of-sale displays to promote its products. Tobacco industry documents show the importance the industry attaches to these displays to achieve “optimal product exposure." One purpose of tobacco retail display bans is to discourage young people from starting to smoke. An experimental evaluation shows that cigarette package displays increase children’s perception that cigarettes are easy to obtain and facilitate their recall of brand names. Bans on the display of tobacco products at the point of sale are expected to result in decreased rates of smoking initiation among young people, decreased rates of smoking in the general population and fewer relapses among quitters.

In short, a ban on visible tobacco displays will:
• protect children and young people from exposure to tobacco promotion;
• support smokers who are trying to quit and former smokers that are trying to stay smoke-free; and,
• be consistent with health promotion campaigns about tobacco products being dangerous and addictive.

Tobacco displays at point of sale ‘normalise’ tobacco products and advertise tobacco products, even though tobacco advertising is banned. Tobacco displays influence children, are a temptation to recent quitters and people trying to quit smoking, increase impulse purchasing, and are crucial to tobacco marketing and promotion. While tobacco displays remain they undermine government investment in tobacco control and decrease the impact of tobacco control legislation.

Last year when facing similar point of sale restrictions in New South Wales, international tobacco company ‘Philip Morris’ wrote to all NSW tobacco retailers with a number of claims. Subsequently, Professor Simon Chapman wrote a critique that refuted the tobacco industry claims.

Use of tobacco products in cars with children
Cars are a confined space and a recent study found that concentrations of both fine respirable suspended particles (RSPs) and carbon monoxide in cars are significantly increased when smoking while driving. RSP levels reached dangerously high levels for the duration of the smoking of the cigarette and stayed elevated for at least 5 minutes after smoking.

Repeated exposures of children to these RSP concentrations are likely to be detrimental to their health and there is good evidence that children’s exposure to passive smoking is strongly associated with a greater likelihood of ear infection, lower respiratory tract infections and increased asthma attacks.

Concerns may be raised as to how this will be enforced. This has not proven to be a problem elsewhere. In NSW Police supported similar legislation and enforcement has worked well in both Tasmania and South Australia. It is not envisaged that enforcement will be a regular focus for the Police, or detract from other areas of policing. Policing will be opportunistic (as it is for mobile ‘phones or seat belts), and the legislation will be largely self-enforced, especially as it becomes recognised and accepted as the norm. It is recommended that any costs entailed in policing and prosecution should be reimbursed to the Police from elsewhere in government, although these costs are not expected to be substantial.

The health effects of passive smoking on children are well documented.

Use of tobacco products in outdoor areas (eating and drinking)
There is strong scientific evidence that smoking in crowded outdoor areas, such as restaurant and hotels, can lead to harmful levels of chronic exposure by both patrons and employees. ACOSH is pleased that the proposed reforms are addressing al fresco dining. With smoking banned from indoor eating areas, there is a higher concentration of smokers and cigarette smoke in al fresco dining areas. This is particularly of concern for non-smoking customers, diners with respiratory issues and for staff who are regularly working in these areas. Smokers have adapted to previous changes to indoor dining, and will continue to adapt if al fresco dining is prohibited. In addition smoke drift from outdoor areas can render indoor smoke-free areas ineffective if the indoor and outdoor areas are adjoined without adequate barriers, open windows and doors.

Increasing community awareness of the harmful effects of passive smoke has led the community to accept, and expect the availability of smoke-free areas. A recent study which measured cigarette smoke levels in a variety of outdoor locations showed that a person sitting near a smoker in an outdoor area could be exposed to levels of cigarette smoke similar to the exposure of someone sitting in an indoor tavern where smoking is allowed.

A key advantage of the outdoor eating or drinking places provision is the broad range of venues that it captures. This means that all alfresco eating areas in Western Australia will become smoke-free. This also will eliminate the problems of smoke-drift from outdoor to indoor areas where alfresco areas are immediately adjacent to indoor bar and eating areas.

Making outdoor areas smoke free is not only about the dangers of exposure to passive smoke. The proposed laws are also about supporting social change, reducing the opportunity to smoke and creating a smoke-free environment where non-smoking is the norm. Social change is being encouraged by separating the acts of eating and drinking from the act of smoking and having outdoor environments where smokers are required to move away to smoke. Reducing the opportunity to smoke by creating more smoke-free areas is effective in decreasing cigarette consumption, reducing the prevalence of adult smoking, and reducing tobacco by young people.

Business and Employer
From a legal perspective, hotels, clubs, restaurants, cafes and the casino have a duty of care to protect employees and patrons from proven hazards. That is an established tenet of common law and the fundamental basis of workplace, health and safety statutes.

Tobacco Industry Arguments lack Credibility
Research commissioned by the tobacco industry has found that any initial resentment of smoking restrictions subsides soon after implementation, and dozens of studies in various jurisdictions have repeatedly shown there is no adverse economic impact on revenue that is attributable to the introduction of smokefree policies in the hospitality sector. The tobacco industry has long been aware that its (and others’) public predictions of dire consequences for the hospitality sector were unfounded. To quote from an internal Philip Morris document in 1994: “The economic arguments often used by the industry to scare off smoking ban activity are no longer working, if indeed they ever did. These arguments simply had no credibility with the public, which isn’t surprising when you consider that our dire predictions in the past rarely came true.”

Local Government approach or a State wide approach
A growing number of WA local government authorities have taken the initiative to introduce smokefree policies and bylaws. While this is to be applauded, it has lead to some inconsistencies within certain localities. For example, from 1 January 2009 the popular Mount Lawley retail and café strip is in both the town of Vincent and the City of Stirling (Walcott St is the boundary between those authorities); this means that Mount Lawley is currently smokefree on the City side of Walcott St; with smoking being permitted on the Perth College side of Walcott St. A very confusing scenario.

Statewide laws would clearly overcome this problem and allow for effective promotion of smokefree regulations. To date Queensland has the most comprehensive smoking bans in outdoor areas. Since July 2006 in Queensland, outdoor eating and drinking areas where food or drink is provided or able to be provided as part of a business must be also no-smoking. An outdoor smoking area can be provided as long as no food or drink sold is provided or consumed in the area, and the area is not within four metres of a building entrance. Hotels and clubs may set aside designated outdoor smoking areas where only smoking and drinking can occur, provided the area is not serviced. 

Use of tobacco products in outdoor areas (playing areas)
Passive smoking can have significant health effects on children. The benefits of this amendment will contribute to legislation and regulations that protect their health, in areas designed for the use of for children, teenagers and young adults. There is strong community support to make playgrounds smoke-free zones. Passive smoke is harmful to both children and adults. Children exposed to second hand smoke are more likely to suffer from colds and ear infections; it is especially dangerous to children and adults with asthma or other chronic illnesses because it aggravates their condition. Littered cigarette butts are also hazardous to children. Young children may pick up the butts and put them in their mouths, with the risk of choking or burning themselves. The harmful chemicals and nicotine in discarded cigarettes can be toxic and even fatal to a small child.

Use of tobacco products in outdoor areas (safe swimming areas)
Patrolled beaches attract large numbers of people, particularly families with children. ACOSH supports the prohibition of smoking in all outdoor public spaces where large groups of people gather. Smoking on beaches is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, cigarette smoke in open spaces can cause discomfort for those people with respiratory problems. Secondly, beaches are places that families with young children; and as such, should be deemed a smoke-free public place. Thirdly, cigarette butts are a major contributor to environmental damage on beaches.

A mixture of local government and state action has led to restrictions on smoking at some Australian beaches. In May 2004, Sydney’s Manly Council became the first in Australia, and only the second in the world following Los Angeles, to legislate a smoking ban on a public beach. Sydney’s Waverly Council immediately followed, banning smoking on their beaches, including Bondi. In 2005, the Queensland Government banned smoking between the flags on all patrolled beaches and on artificial beaches.

Other issues for consideration
There is still scope for action in a range of other areas especially at the national level, however the ‘Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill 2008’ is an important Bill that will do much to protect the health of the West Australian community.

Indigenous rights is based on the principles that Indigenous people should be acknowledged as the first peoples of this country and that they should enjoy the rights and interests that flow from that status.  This debate is as relevant today as at any time of our history.

Contrary to this rights based approach, the Northern Territory Intervention that began in the dying year of the Howard Government and continued, in some fashion under the Rudd Government, is a doomed experiment of social and economic reconstruction.  It has failed to gain the traction in the communities it was supposed to support and will continue to fail because of a very fundamental lack of consultation, recognition, and consent of the people it is seeking to engage.  It is an exercise in top-down enforced change to which the community must capitulate or face sanctions.  It makes a mockery of their rights as citizens let alone their rights as the traditional owners of the country.

Nevertheless, there has been some good that has come from the NT Intervention but these outcomes are from the large amount of resources that have been thrown at the issues such as health screening or other remedial measures.  These are resources that should have been there in the first place and it shouldn’t have taken near economic and social collapse for them to be brought to bear.

There are lessons from the NT Intervention.  One is that there is a huge task ahead to overcome Indigenous disadvantage and that it will take more than one season of commitment from the Government.  The other lesson from the NT is that the Aboriginal community must be part of any solution to the problems they face.  The community cannot be “done unto”.  It is old government, old thinking, and it should have been relegated to the rubbish heap of history.  But history does have a habit of repeating itself and WA looks set to do just that.

The WA Government recently revealed its Indigenous implementation committee.  This is a committee chaired by Lieutenant General Sanderson and includes influential people such as Fiona Stanley along with some members of the Indigenous community such as Sue Gordon and Mark Bin Bakar.

The Indigenous Implementation Committee is a poorly conceived process that lacks any statutory clout and has no public sector mandate.  On one hand it is a board to oversee a government department and on the other a free-wheeling think tank.  It appears to be creating leadership by proxy for a Government that has very little commitment to Indigenous interests and rights.

The Indigenous Implementation Committee has been set up to fail.  Lieutenant General Sanderson has no authority, no statutory powers, and no way - other than by the force of personality - to compel the Government to do anything. 

I don’t seek to criticise the Lieutenant General or any of the members of the committee, they are as committed and desperate as anyone to see an end to the misery and despair faced by many Aboriginal people in WA; particularly in regional and remote areas.  My criticism is focused squarely at the Government.  They are seeking to once again to impose yet another regime and authority on a community dealing with the accumulated impact of generations of imposed religions, laws, regulation, removal and representation.

Why didn’t the Government consult on how Aboriginal people actually wanted to have change take place in their community.    Why didn’t they learn from the lessons of the NT Intervention and seek to get people’s ownership of the programs and solutions that are put in place.

We do have an example of what works for change in Aboriginal communities.  Last year, women in Fitzroy Crossing fought for and won an important reprieve for their community – the restriction on the sale of take-away alcohol to at least give the community breathing space from the debilitating effect of alcohol on their community.  In achieving these things, they have undertaken an important process: the change they sought and the change brought about came from the ground up – for, indeed, this is the only way sustained change can occur. 

Sustained change in Aboriginal communities does not come from ideas imposed from outside the community; where community members have no role in decision making – including no consultation and no negotiation.  Change will only be sustained when they have had a key role in the decision making process.

The Sanderson Committee has not been formed through community engagement and the community has had no buy-in.  We have seen by it actions the value the Government places on Indigenous consultation.  The Premier’s announcement that Kimberley traditional owners must submit to his ideas on the Kimberley Gas Hub speaks volumes for the importance he places on the views of Indigenous people.

The formation of the Indigenous Implementation Committee raises more questions than answers.  It has no mandate other than the personal desire of the Minister.  There is no indication of how the committee will function. What will happen if the committee disagrees with the Director General of the DIA, the Minister, or the Premier for that matter?  What will happen if the WA Aboriginal Advisory Committee has an alternate view of the policy developments of the Sanderson committee: and, who will the Minister back?  Will the Government be bound by the committee’s decisions?  Will other Ministers or their directors-general heed or even care what they have to say?

The third, and most disturbing, aspect of the committee’s formation is that it is being undertaken at a time when Indigenous rights and the condition of the Aboriginal community are under renewed attack.

While the Government is trying to shroud itself in the idea that it actually cares about Aboriginal people in this state through the formation of the Sanderson Committee, look at what it had done in its short time in office.

Before Christmas, the Attorney-General announced his intention to introduce measures and laws to Parliament that will swell the numbers of Aboriginal people in our already over-crowded jails.  One of the first actions of the Premier was to signal his intention to override the rights and views of Aboriginal people in the Kimberley regarding the go-ahead and location of the gas hub – a gesture made all the more disturbing when one considers the progress and process of negotiation that had taken place up to that point and had brought agreement almost to point of being achieved. Finally, on the issue of ‘Native Title’; this government has had three different Ministers for Native Title in its first 100 days of government!

What does that tell us?

I have read a number of reviews of this movie from US critics and overall they have panned it.  So I went along last night wondering if  producer Baz Luhrmann had really got it so wrong.  While not a particular fan of ‘epic style’ movies; i think the US critics got it wrong - not Baz - as they did not understand the story!   Sure it had the usual elements of a great saga: family, war,  action, along with a cattle station, a corrupt business rival and romance . Nevertheless, it was essentially a story about how Australia treated its Indigenous people for most of the last century.  It told the story of ‘drovers boys’, it showed that the ‘Stolen Generation’ was essentially about the abuse of Aboriginal women by white men, it showed the role of the police in child removal, it showed the role of the churches in running the institutions, it showed the various ways mothers tried to stop the removal, it displayed an element of the authorities dismissal of the feelings those mothers had for their children, it demonstrated the disregard some of those white fathers had for their children.  It also had some very strong symbolism and the roles played by two Aboriginal men - especially the grandfather figure - who gave it a real edginess.  In my view this film is a worthy successor to ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’; as it takes the story, to the next level.

anyone who has had to deal with drug addiction in their family knows that it is a hard road to travel - with enormous implications; there are the enormous emotional highs and lows, the explosive anger outbursts that come out of nowhere, the ripping off - both finacially and emotionally. The list goes on and on. Clearly, Cousins is seeking to deal with his addiction and some people say that an important part of his therapy is being allowed to get back on track in the top level of AFL. Some commentators have even suggested that if he fails to re-enter the AFL, it could be a major backwards step in his recovery. Please! Ben was a great footballer to watch and there was a lot of talk and reporting about his off field behaviour around Perth for years. Malthouse (who knows Cousins) and Collingwood expressed some interest, did some homework and said no thanks; now there are suggestions that the Lions and Saints interest might be waning. While may punters would like to see Cousins on the track again - we are not necessarily that keen on seeing clubs become Cousins therapy for healing. There are risks involved and there will always be risks - just ask any reformed alcoholic. Cousins has possibly copped some unfair media scrutiny; however he has also been given a great deal of support, a hell of a lot more than many other addicts receive (just think about that US clinic for starters). THE AFL has a tough decision to make, but the interested clubs have an even tougher one. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds in a society that is riddled with drug abuse.

It is possible that the world will end at around 3pm this afternoon (Perth time, Western Australia). Physicists deep underground on the Swiss French border have begun the essential work of propelling protons at speeds close to the velocity of light prompting mock-cataclysmic collisions in the hope of replicating either a: the sub atomic circumstances that followed the Big Bang or b: the sub atomic circumstances that preceded the Even Bigger Bang. 

This moment of apprehension provides us with a window of opportunity to the wonder about the human soul and existence. Faced with the prospect of impending oblivion how do we behave? What are our thoughts and actions? Do we pay careful attention to our closest relationships?

The  ‘ Large Hadron Collider’ is real; but what is reality?

if you want more info - check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron_Collider

Is the unused ‘purpose built’ detention centre on Christmas Island a white elephant, or does it serve another purpose?

The Christmas Island story is fascinating, the Poms ‘gave’ it to us just before Singapore gots its independence.  This was supposedly to secure superphosphate supplies for the cockies. 

The super has virtually dried up years ago and it is a politcal boil on the bum of Australia with its resident Malay, Chinese and Anglo population (non of whom are indigenous to CI which was uninhabitated once).  The Japaenese liked it during the war and apparently shot one or two POW’s there. 

Until now the most infamous recent fiasco there was Tommy Suharto’s Casino - which apparently had bucketloads of money going through it.  That temple to greed, with its concrete dinosaurs, is gradually being re-claimed by mould and the jungle after it was abandoned over a decade ago. 

now we have spent hundreds of millions to build an unused detention facility and pour in millions more every year to staff and maintain it. The question is why Australia keeps funding Christmas Island at all?  What does it really cost the Australian economy to maintain this island mountain adjacent to Indonesia? 

Well the answer is, not as much as it would cost to keep an aircraft carrier stationed in the Indian Ocean.  You can bet your bottom dollar that this $380 million facility was built to military specifications for the same reason.  Why would a detention facility need such dam thick concrete walls?  Maybe one day the mould and the jungle will consume this facility as well.

To red crabs and ants!

Prisoners and prison officers deserve the same level of care and protection from the harmful effects of smoking as everyone else in the community.

The prevalence of tobacco use in Australian prisons remains extremely high at 80%, in contrast with the continuing decline of smoking in the wider community. Smoking in custodial settings is a major priority because high prisoner smoking rates have significant health and economic implications.

‘Prison culture’, which makes tobacco smoking accepted as the norm is problematic; and the lack of any political commitment towards addressing tobacco use in prisons is worrying.

In 2005 California banned the possession, sale, and use of all tobacco products for inmates, employees, and visitors to the State’s 32 prisons. With over 160,000 people incarcerated California has the largest prisoner population in the US. It was estimated that about 80,000 of those prisoners were smokers and a study reported that tobacco use cost California an average of $3,500 per smoking prisoner every year in health costs. Hence, the bans were expected to reduce the state’s inmate health care expenses by about $280 million annually.

Prisons without tobacco are becoming the norm across the US and the experience has generally been very positive. In 2004 smoking was outlawed in 105 federal penitentiaries that accommodate roughly 180,000 inmates. At least ten States have bans where the use and possession of tobacco products is outlawed on prison property.

But what is happening in Australia?

Western Australia has the lowest smoking rates in the country and the Australian Council on Smoking and Health (ACOSH) has urged the introduction of smokefree prisons in WA with the last two Ministers for Corrective Services.

Late last year ACOSH was contacted by prison officers from Greenough Regional Prison who were extremely concerned about the health risks of work in a smoke-filled environment.

The prison officers also sent a petition to their local member and requested him to table it in the State parliament. It had been signed by about half the staff and was a heartfelt plea for a smokefree environment.

They discussed it with the local member, who was very supportive and took action on their behalf with the petition. The Minister subsequently made an initial announcement to the media.

ACOSH has received positive support and positive feedback about Greenough from prisons around the State and other parts of Australia; smoking is topical in prisons everywhere.

ACOSH have also received letters from prisoners in WA prisons who are really concerned about the effects of other people’s smoke on their health.

The recent announcement by the Minister of trialing a partial ban on smoking in Greenough Regional Prison is inadequate and it is a desperately slow response to requests from prison staff.

The case for a ban on smoking in prisons is clear and overwhelming. It will protect the health of prisoners and prison staff. Failing to ban smoking in cells overnight, for instance, will make the trial pathetically weak. This was one of the major concerns for prison officers because they say the air is thick with smoke when they open the cells every morning.

The Minister’s announcement was well intentioned, but she appears to have been poorly advised.

This 12 month trial of a partial smoking ban in one regional prison is the weakest possible response to calls for a complete ban on smoking in all Western Australian prisons. Partial bans get partial results and cannot be expected to succeed; prisoners will remain exposed to all the cues that encourage smoking.

Prisoners and prison staff deserve to have their health protected just as much as other members of the community. A complete ban on smoking in prisons should be carefully planned and implemented. It should be introduced properly, rather than this half baked approach which is a recipe for failure.

Interestingly, WA’s Frankland Centre (which is a specialist correctional facility for those with mental illnes) like the rest of the health system has been smokefree since last June and it had a very successful and smooth implementation.

Staff at Greenough prison requested a complete ban; and the case for the ban on smoking is overwhelming on health and occupational safety grounds.

The Minister clearly supports a ban in principle, but she appears to have been convinced by Bureaucrats to opt for the least effective approach.

We encourage the Minister to act firmly in the interests of prisoner and staff health.