The problem with social media in Australia and how to fix it

Social media can have many benefits but there is growing concern that these platforms are responsible for a range of harms to users. These include anxiety, depression, self harm, suicide, body anxiety, low self esteem, cyber bulling, online predators, loneliness, sleep disturbance, internet addiction, false information and more.

The role of social media as a major cause of  problems continues to be debated but over time we have seen an increasing number of studies and reports indicating that the currently (2025) popular social media platforms really do cause serious harm to many people, particularly adolescents.

The basic cause of the harms done by social media entities as they currently function is that their platforms are operated by the proprietors for the financial benefit of the proprietors and advertisers.

The proprietors have no interest in the welfare of users beyond enticing them to subscribe to the platform, remain engaged and preferably addicted.  They have no interest in checking the veracity of assertions posted by users. I think it is likely that they welcome wild claims and extravagant conspiracy theories as these generate more activity and there for income  than thoughtful discussion.

They have no interest in providing news if they have to pay for it.

The product which the proprietors are selling to the advertisers is the users themselves and a great deal of information about those users. Corporate social media platforms in common use in 2025 are essentially exploitative in nature.

My purpose in this post is to present a model for social media which enables the benefits while reducing the risk of harms. The model seeks to encourage freedom of expression with responsibility for the potential effect of that expression on others.

This model makes users, not proprietors, principal  beneficiaries of the platform and utilises artificial intelligence to that end.

Here is my proposed model and how it could work in Australia.

1. The Australian Federal Government establishes a social media regulating authority. Let us call this AusConn.  Any entity wishing to operate a social media platform in Australia must be approved by AusConn.

2. Any prospective social media operating entity must be a non-profit organisation with its books open to AusConn.

3. Individuals, groups and organisations can post.  All must register to participate providing verified name, address and contact details similar to those required to open a bank account or (for individuals) apply for a passport.

4. All posts are public. They can be viewed by anyone with access to the internet.

5. Each user, individual, group or organisation, can make no more than one post per day and one response per day, except in emergency such as bushfire, flood and similar threats to public safety.

There is a limited  number of words or minutes per post or response.

6. No re-posting is permitted. No “likes” or similar are allowed.

7. All posts and responses will be moderated using a hybrid model. An AI driven content moderation tool performs an initial scan. Matters requiring further judgement are referred to the human moderation team.

7a. No commercial advertising is permitted. The AI moderator will remove any post flagged as  commercial advertising and will post a notice in place of the original post to that effect. There will be cases when there is a dispute as to whether a post constitutes a review or a public notice as distinct from a commercial advertisement. These will be referred to the human moderation team for decision.

7b.  There are many Australian laws which could be broken by a post on social media.  These relate to treason, sedition, defamation, discrimination, privacy, copyright, contempt of court, incitement to violence, classified information, trade secrets, offensive behaviour and others. If the AI moderator identifies a post as illegal it will notify the poster of this and give the poster 24 hours to give reason why the post should be regarded as lawful.

The original post, the AI response and any other responses are all in the public domain.

There will be cases where the legality or otherwise of a post is disputed. If there is no resolution in 24 hours the post will be referred to the human moderation team for decision as to further action which could include removal of the post. The original poster will have the option of leaving the original post in place and risking prosecution by police or other authority.

7c. If the AI moderator identifies a post as factually incorrect, misleading, fake, mischievous or otherwise in bad faith but not actually unlawful, it will append a comment to the original post indicating the perceived problem and inviting comment from platform users.

8. The platform will be funded by subscription with an annual rate for individuals, concession holders, small groups and large groups.

9. Platform users wishing access to news will pay a news subscription in addition to the basic subscription. The proceeds of this will go to news providers.

10. A social media ombudsman will deal with complaints.

Concepts and principles:

* The social media model outlined here aims to encourage freedom of expression, contest of ideas and civil discourse within a set of regulations designed to limit the harms which have been attributed to corporate social media platforms popular in 2025.

* If a civil society wishes to avoid lapsing into anarchy, freedom of expression must be constrained by responsibility for the potential effects of that expression on others.

* Responsibility for published content is shared between platform host and contributors.

My position on this is that any platform host which thinks it is not responsible  for material posted by contributors has abdicated its duty to society.  I regard section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act of 1996 to be an invidious piece of legislation which has enabled this abdication, to the detriment of civil society. The problem is greatly magnified globally because legislation in one country (USA) affects all other countries whose citizens use social media owned by corporations based in USA.

* I am astonished and disappointed that humans are still debating whether social media should be regulated. I think this is due to the pervasive power of multinational corporations and oligarchs, who benefit from freedom to operate in an unregulated domain.

In fact, functional societies in which people choose to live have many regulations about pretty much all goods, services and activities. Can you imagine what driving a car might be like if there were no regulations regarding the design and construction of cars and roads and no road traffic rules ? It would be total chaos with a horrendous death toll.

 

 

National Agreement on Closing the Gap, Comments on the Productivity Commission report 17 February 2024

 

William Tilmouth, Arrente man, Alice Springs: “Billions of dollars have been wasted. And at the moment it’s just copious amounts of funds being sucked up into nowhere and getting nowhere”.  (ABC News 13 February 2024)

The Closing the Gap programme is  well meant but deeply flawed leading to its inevitable failure.

That would be bad enough but worse is that the review process has been hi-jacked by a group of aboriginal activists who are trying to use it as a platform on which to advance their plan for an aboriginal sovereign state.

The notion of a “gap” between aborigines and not-aborigines as to a range of quality of life measures has been part of Australian aboriginal policy for about 20 years.

The most recent report on progress or lack of it in achieving the goals set by the 2020 agreement was commissioned by the Australian Government in 2022 and carried out by the Productivity Commission.

Two commissioners, Romilie Mokak (CEO of the Lowitja institute) and Natalie Siegel-Brown (permanent commissioner on the Productivity Commission on a 5 year contract)   were in charge of the conduct of the review and are signatories to the final report documents released publicly in February 2024.

There are three documents: An 8 page “Approach to the review” with pictograms, The study report Volume 1 with 109 pages and the Study report Volume 2, Supporting paper, with 436 pages.

That makes about 288,000 words most of which amount to little more than verbose bureaucratese verbiage which manages to obfuscate rather than convey meaning.

The lorikeets which visit my house each day have no words but are able to communicate more effectively than these documents can manage.

There are however a few paragraphs somewhat buried in the logorrhoea which actually do convey what the authors of the report are trying to achieve, as we shall see.

I read the 8 page pictogram presentation and the 109 page Volume 1.

I have to confess skimming the 436 page supporting paper which proved to be one of the most TLDR documents I have ever seen, mostly consisting of repetition and expansion of the material in Volume 1.

I also read numerous reports in the press about the Review.  I have been studying aboriginal policy in my own time for the last ten years, referencing material available in the public domain, of which there is a great deal.

The 2020 version of the Closing the Gap agreement sought to improve aboriginal welfare  with reference to 17 socio-economic targets. 

These relate to:

1. Life expectancy

2. Birth weight

3. Child development milestones

4. ATSI children in out-of-home care

5. Suicide

6. School attendance

7. Year 12 school qualification

8. Tertiary qualification

9. Youth Employment, education or training

10. Mature adult employment

11. Adult incarceration

12. Youth detention

13. Family violence

14. Decent housing

15. Distinctive cultural relationship with land and waters

16. ATSI languages spoken

17. Level of digital inclusion

There have been several efforts by the Productivity Commission to collect data on progress against these indicators in the period 2021-2023.

As best I can tell from data published in the public domain, results have been mixed.

A few indicators were assessed as being on track, for instance adult employment, but in this case the expectation has been set so low that the 55.7% level achieved rates as “on track”.  In the strange world of aboriginal policy in Australia  44% unemployment  somehow counts as a success.

The really big problem however is the four indicators which saw a deterioration in performance over the data collection period.

These are  adult imprisonment, children in out-of-home care, suicide and children’s early development. 

These are hard data indicators, unlike such things as “cultural relationship with land and waters” which defies measurement or even meaning.

But imprisonment, out of home care, poor infant development and suicide are measurable and are very strong indicators of severe dysfunction in the target community.

So I expected the review to consist largely of an investigation into the causes and possible means of reversing these very disturbing indicators of social breakdown.

But as to an analysis of incarceration, child development, out of home care and suicide, I found  nothing. Not a word.

Unbelievably and bizarrely the review declined to offer any analysis of or remedy for these four problem areas.

In fact the 17 (or in some versions, 19) Closing the Gap targets are barely mentioned at all in the report documents.

So what the heck is going on ?

I think we can work our way towards understanding this by examining what the documents do say and what they don’t say.

First what they do say:

In brief summary the  authors of the report call for implementation of what they refer to as “priority reforms”. No evidence or narrative or any kind of argument is presented to explain how implementation of these so-called reforms might reduce the number of aborigines in prison or the number killing themselves.

These “priority reforms” are

* Strengthening and establishing formal partnerships and shared decision-making.

* Building the ATSI community controlled sector.

* Transforming government organisations so they work better for ATSI people.

* Improving and sharing access to data and information.

The authors fail to explain what these “priority reforms” actually mean or how anybody might implement them or how anybody might decide when they are done or how anybody might decide if anyone benefitted or what kind of benefit that might be.

We might be inclined to dismiss these “reforms” as woolly verbiage which they are,  but they also reveal what I think is one of the real agendas of the Report. This is to promote  Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCO) and to press for more funds for these organisations.

Presumably we are meant to believe that ACCOs are able to provide better outcomes for aborigines than generic mainstream services. But no evidence of any kind is produced in support of this notion. In fact if we consider the need for the review, namely that indicators of aboriginal well-being are trending backwards and we consider it likely that ACCOs are operating in backwards trending regions,  then we must conclude that ACCOS could be doing more harm than good.  At the very least this possibility should be fully investigated.

The authors of the review fail to acknowledge any of this. 

Moving right along, we find somewhat buried on page 31 of Volume 1 the next main aim of the authors.

Unusually in a document largely padded out with bureaucratese waffle, this particular aim is spelled out clearly.

“The Agreement requires a shift in power and control”

“For meaningful progress to be made towards Closing the Gap, governments must share power, recognising that the right of ATSI peoples to have control over decisions that affect their lives is central to self determination.”

Well, there it is. This entire exercise is a Trojan Horse for aboriginal activists to continue their campaign to promote aboriginal separationism, increased power and control over programs funded by your taxes and “self determination”.

In the context of Australian aboriginal policy the idea of self determination feeds into the desire by some aboriginal activists to create a separate aboriginal nation with separate sovereignty, separate lands, separate laws and separate services, all paid for, thank you very much, by your taxes.

But wait, there’s more. If we dig down a bit more we discover the authors want to establish a bureau of indigenous data sovereignty.  

What the heck is that, we might ask ???  The idea is discussed in the report, but the language is verbosely opaque. 

My view ?    It’s yet another component of the structure of an aboriginal “sovereign nation”  which the authors seek to establish.

It certainly has nothing to do with aboriginal disadvantage.

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 February 2024 as reported by Natassia Chrysanthos and Jack Latimore, commissioners Mokak and Siegel-Brown called for “indigenous led audits of racism and unconscious bias in government departments”.

How on planet earth these people imagine they might “audit racism and unconscious bias” they do not say. Of course the idea is complete nonsense. Nobody can audit something unconscious or even imagine they can determine when it exists.

This absurd ambition tells us just how far removed from the practical reality of disadvantaged people these commissioners really are.

Let us consider what we do not find in the report.

As already mentioned there is hardly anything at all about the actual indicators which the Review was supposed to examine.

There is nothing at all of a practical nature which could be implemented using some of the billions (yes they are billions not just millions) of dollars wasted each year on the aboriginal grievance industry.

The things which any report fails to discuss are the things which the authors don’t care about.  In this case, that is the health, welfare and quality of life of actual people some of whom are marooned in the purgatory of violent, dysfunctional remote settlements while aboriginal activists use their plight as a platform from which to promote their dream of a  separate sovereign aboriginal nation.

The “closing the gap” enterprise has been shown by the Productivity Commission to have failed. At best there have been marginal improvements in some indicators which could easily have occurred without any special measures.

Of greater concern,  four of the most troubling indicators have gotten worse.

This alone tells us that the entire 20 year closing the gap enterprise has failed.

Why ?

The answer to this question involves a sorry story of policies which were meant to help a group of people but have in fact made their situation worse. Bad aboriginal policy has a long and disgraceful history in Australia.  But in the modern era I nominate the 1967 referendum as the catalyst for a tsunami of bad policies implemented throughout the latter part of the 20^th Century and into the 21^st Century.  The great majority of these were implemented by decent people with the best intentions. I have discussed many issues arising from the 1967 referendum here.

Here I want to concentrate on the notion of the “gap” which I will try to show is a misleading idea which has led public policy astray. It involves a misuse of statistics to produce a distorted impression of reality leading to failed endeavours.

We can identify many dichotomies in our society relevant to the advantage/disadvantage paradigm.

For instance if we look at imprisonment, we can readily discover that people in prison are more likely to be men, unable to read and write, poor, homeless, lacking family supports, unemployed, substance abusing or  mentally ill.  

We can also find statistics which show that people who identify as aborigines have a higher rate of incarceration than people who identify as not-aborigines.  The question is why.

The other fact is that most aborigines are not in prison. The majority who are not in prison are likely to be educated, employed, have family connections, live in a regular house and refrain from committing criminal acts.

The reason some aborigines are in prison is not because they are aborigines but because they are humans (mostly men) who engage in criminal activity and lack the means to avoid incarceration.

The point is they are in prison as a result of circumstances and behaviours which can involve any group of people however described.

Being in prison is not an aborigine problem. Attempting to fix the problem by pretending it is an aborigine problem will fail and has failed as shown clearly by the 2024 report.

For the reader who is still not on board with my argument I offer a little story. Many years ago I witnessed a Chinaman in Chinatown stagger off the footpath in front of a bus which ran over and killed him. Is getting run over by a bus in Chinatown a Chinaman problem ?  Of course not.   It is a problem for anybody who becomes intoxicated and steps off the footpath into a traffic stream without looking.

Coming back to the present day, here is another example. We know that people who live in outback and remote areas have higher rates of depression and suicide than those who live in urban settings. This problem affects all ethnic groups.

In a statistical analysis aborigines appear to be more affected by remote living but that is simply because more of them live in remote areas with poor diet, unemployment, poor literacy, unsatisfactory housing and poor self esteem.

The problem is not one of ethnic affiliation. It is not because some people are aborigines. It is due to their circumstances not their ethnic identity.  Urban aborigines (the majority) who are literate, educated, employed, engaged with their community and feel they are making a valued contribution to society score with the population mean on indicators of health, welfare and quality of life.

Ongoing attempts to deal with problems of remote area living as particular to aborigines have failed as shown by the data.

All this means that the idea of a “gap” between aborigines and not-aborigines on the advantage/disadvantage scale is a statistical artefact. It is not a useful basis on which to develop policy.

The 2024 review by the productivity commission has arrived at two useful conclusions. 

The first useful conclusion is that the last 20 years of posturing and announcing targets without any discernible means of reaching those targets has been a complete failure.  To quote from the foreword to the Review report Volume 1

“….it has become clear that in order to see change, business-as-usual must be a thing of the past. …Across the country we have observed small tweaks or additional initiatives….as attempts to give effect to the agreement. However real change does not mean multiplying or re-naming business-as-usual actions”.

The second useful conclusion follows from the first, namely that the entire approach to improving aboriginal quality of life must undergo fundamental change.

“ …Change can be confronting and difficult. But without fundamental change the agreement will fail and the gap will remain.”

I agree entirely with the review conclusions to this point. Given the information available one can hardly disagree. To recap:

1. The Closing the Gap project has failed repeatedly over a period of many years and must now be regarded as no longer viable, unless

2. We (meaning all concerned Australians) agree to make fundamental changes to the strategies we employ in our efforts to help a group of disadvantaged people.

But what should those fundamental changes be ?

The authors of the review present a set of recommendations which consist of

a) four “priority reform outcomes” which are in fact meaningless bureaucratic verbiage the only “outcome” of which would be expansion of the ACCO empire with no evidence that this might improve anybody’s life in any way. To put it bluntly these “priority reform outcomes” are bullshit.

b) Creation of a “bureau of indigenous data sovereignty”, with no attempt to explain how such a strange entity might achieve anything useful for anybody.

c) The bizarre notion of “Indigenous led audits of discrimination and unconscious bias in government departments”.  This is so weird I think no further comment is required.

But here is the thing. We already know how to improve the health, welfare and quality of life of any group of people, anywhere. With respect to Australian aborigines we need to start by recognising that all humans are of the same species and all have the same basic requirements for a good life.

We need to stop treating aborigines as if they are some kind of separate species of being. We need to stop separating aborigines from the mainstream of modern society by geography and policy. 

The attempt by aborigine elites to create a separate aboriginal sovereign nation is doing enormous harm to those very same aborigines.

The basic requirements for a decent quality of life are:

* Good nutrition and care in the womb, with freedom from alcohol and other toxins.

* Love, care and good nutrition in early childhood. Stable, caring parents.

* Good parental attention to nutrition, care and disease prevention in childhood.

* Good school education.

* Attainment of employment-ready qualifications.

* Decent, stable housing.

* Paid employment.

* Family and community cohesion.

All these things promote in the individual a sense of meaningful existence within an appreciative society.

There is no need to re-invent the wheel. Sociologists and health researchers have known all this stuff  for over a hundred  years.  Check out the work of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim and his concept of Anomie, which he developed in the latter part of the 19^th Century.  His work is still relevant today and is clearly applicable to people living in isolated communities subject to disruptive changes to society and culture.

Nutrition, health, housing, employment, relationships and cohesive communities are the basis on which good lives are built. 

The worst dysfunction and poorest quality of life among aborigines is found in remote settlements. I have visited three of these in outback Western Australia and Northern Territory. Here I saw people living in worse conditions than I have seen anywhere else in the world. I saw people with nothing to engage them sitting or pacing in aimless fashion. I saw the shop well stocked with fizzy cola and some white bread but not much else. I heard that only whitefellas can run the shop because if aborigines try it they are hi-jacked by the humbug. I saw children drive around in a new-looking Landcruiser with a flat tyre then abandon the vehicle for want of anyone willing or able to fix the tyre. I saw mangy dogs in large numbers all around the camp. I saw rubbish all over the place because the people living there thought picking up rubbish was beneath them.

These settlements are referred to by Senator Jacinta Price (NT) as “hellholes” as a result of her extensive personal experience with these places.

The history of humans on planet earth over the millennia is that when groups of people find their circumstances desperate and the place they now occupy no longer viable, they emigrate.

In fact almost everybody in Australia is here because they came as an immigrant or their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents  did. Migration is an integral part of Australian culture.

While the proponents of  “an indigenous led audit of discrimination and unconscious bias…” are having endless stupid, unproductive meetings achieving nothing the same money and time could be put towards practical and useful projects.

We could set up a voluntary internal migration programme to help families move from remote settlement hellholes to a town or city of their choice where there are opportunities for better child care, health services, education, training and employment. This might involve a one-off grant of a house plus a year’s employment support.

We could set up a fund to send school students from remote areas to boarding schools for a decent education. We could fund a programme to help young aborigines attend TAFE colleges to acquire trade qualifications.

But the bloated multi-billion dollar aboriginal grievance industry absolutely needs to keep the 90,000 or so aborigines in remote settlements right where they are in perpetual suffering. Because without those poor people the aboriginal grievance industry would have no reason to exist.

I must say a few words about the Productivity Commission’s choice of commissioners to head this review.

It seems to me that if the Commission is doing its job properly it should select commissioners who are not associated with any pre-conceived position on the matter of aboriginal policy and the Close the Gap project in particular.

I take the view that the Productivity Commission misdirected itself very badly in this case.

Romilie Mokak is CEO of the Lowitja Institute. You can go to their website to see what they believe. Their policy priorities 2022-2025 are all spelled out in detail. My point is that Mr Mokak is highly committed to a pre-conceived set of priorities. He is not in any sense an unbiassed observer. He is a passionate advocate for certain particular types of policy initiatives.

Natalie Siegel-Brown also has  a background in aboriginal advocacy in particular about ACCOs.

The Commissioners do declare their interest but they cannot separate themselves from that interest.

My point is that the review was a waste of time and money when the commissioners had a known predilection for a certain course of action.

I hope the federal government which commissioned the review now does the only reasonable thing which is to bury the review and its stupid proposals in the bottom of a deep drawer somewhere in the archives, never to be seen again.

And starts doing things which we know from existing research are likely to work.

Like….helping people to achieve health, housing, education, employment and self respect and if that can best be done for some people with a voluntary internal migration programme then get on with it.

The Federal Government’s first response to the report is contained in a press release dated 13 February 2024 from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

This does not endorse or even mention the Productivity Commission’s recommendations.

Their “plan” is to throw $707million in the general direction of outback and remote area settlements by means of a cash splash with the pretentious title “Remote Jobs and Economic Development Programme”. This we are assured will provide “real jobs, proper wages and decent conditions.”

But no plan is offered, no actual jobs are identified and no employment strategy is presented.

Michelle Grattan interviewed assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy in a podcast published on The Conversation, 17 February 2024.

Ms Grattan asked the Minister a series of specific questions and got vague generalities by way of response. As the 25 minute interview went on it became apparent that the government lacks an actual plan, seemingly content to hand out lots of money to local communities who can decide for themselves what to do with it.

The Prime Minister calls this “self determination”

I call it making an announcement, the purpose of which is to get bad news out of the headlines. This is the strategy which Prime Ministers and Cabinet members have been using for many years in lieu of real action. Unfortunately it will waste yet another truckload of taxpayer’s money with no tangible benefit for anybody.

The Government's second response, on 11 March 2024,  was to announce a four bilion dollar plan over ten years for the construction of new housing in remote communities to be funded by the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments. I think this is another case of making an announcement, the likely purpose of which is to get bad news about aboriginal policy out of the headlines. 

The problem with policy announcements like this is that we have been there before, many times. Assuming any houses are actually constructed they will be in locations severely lacking in opportunities for education, training and employment. 

This is exactly the kind of "business as usual" response which the review commissioners complained about in their report. Building houses in remote settlements has failed before and will fail again if the aim is to improve the quality of life of the people affected.

I take the view that a more constructive approach would be to offer individuals and families (not aboriginal corporations) a housing package as part of a programme of re-settlement to a more urban location with more opportunities for education, training, employment and health. I dare say aboriginal activists will protest loudly about such an initiative but we should be aware that none of those activists chooses to live in a remote settlement. 

Last words

Aboriginal activists frequently assert that life is bad for some aborigines because governments and their agencies fail to listen to aboriginal people. That claim is false. In fact governments and their agencies have listened to aboriginal activists and done what they recommend, over and over again. They have agreed to land rights, aboriginal title, separate aboriginal lands and settlements, separate aboriginal health, welfare, housing, legal and education programmes, aboriginal community controlled organisations,  multitudes of aboriginal agencies and entities, the list goes on and on.

Persistent repetition of the false claim that governments do not listen to aborigines is disingenuous, deceitful and a leading cause of bad policies.

It is high time governments started treating aborigines as they do other Australians, acknowledging they have the same rights, responsibilities, capabilities and potential. The entire enterprise of special laws and policies for people simply because they identify as aborigines has comprehensively failed. 

We said No to the Voice. What now ? Some suggestions for Plan B

 

 

Author Andrew Smallman 15 October 2023

Australians have rejected the proposal for an indigenous Voice to parliament and the executive at a referendum on 14 October 2023.

Yes campaigner Noel Pearson said in an interview on  radio 3AW with Neil Mitchell  that a No vote would be a “precipice, an abyss” into which Australia would plunge.

Well, here we are, the numbers are in and nobody has fallen off a precipice. No abyss has opened up to swallow us.

Which leaves us with the reasonable question: If not the voice what is plan B?

In the aftermath of the No vote, it seems to me that three themes have emerged in statements by disappointed yes campaigners.

One theme is nihilism. There is no alternative. All is lost. Reconciliation is dead.

A second theme is demands for a truth and reconciliation commission (TRC)  “like they have in South Africa”.  We might respond to this by pointing out that Australia is not South Africa and never has been. We might also observe that enthusiasm for the TRC in South Africa is by no means universal with many commentators on the ground questioning its value.

A third theme is that we must re-double our efforts to “close the gap”. At a superficial level this seems perfectly reasonable but unless we come to better understand why aborigines in remote settlements have such a poor quality of life then rhetoric about closing the gap is just words.

A major problem in remote communities is youth suicide. I am a retired psychiatrist with experience of suicide, its causes, and measures which can reduce its frequency. People who feel like outcasts are much more likely to kill themselves than people who feel like valued members of a functioning society. The way forward will not be found in rhetoric or more funding for services. As a nation we need to implement policies which will help people in remote communities who feel like outcasts to become valued members of the mainframe of the larger entity of Australian society.

In the discussion below I put forward three specific suggestions which could help this process along.

I put the view that plan B in 2023 and beyond is what should have been plan A  in 1967 leading up to the referendum held in that year.

I will try to explain what I mean.

Debate about Aboriginal policy in Australia has been conducted around two main conceptual ambitions.

The first is based on the equality-engagement paradigm. This holds that the aim of policy should be to assist disadvantaged people, including some aborigines and others, to achieve equality  with the mainstream of the population in law and rights and responsibilities and opportunities.

Any explicit policy driven initiatives will be in the form of affirmative action programmes which are self limiting. They cease to operate when their objective has been achieved. That objective is to become engaged with and part of the mainstream, or “mainframe” as Noel Pearson calls it, using a term suggested by his mentor Galarrwuy Yunupingu.

Mr Pearson’s term mainframe seems very appropriate to me as it conveys the idea of people joining the flow then maturing to become part of the structure of the society which enables that flow to occur.

The second conceptual basis of aboriginal policy is grounded in the idea that aborigines require special provisions  in perpetuity.

Precisely why they require these special provisions is never clarified. However it appears to rest on a kind of inverted exceptionalism which represents aborigines as damaged by the ravages of colonial invasion perpetuated by the mystery of intergenerational trauma.

It is fundamentally separationist in ambition.  This has been the main thrust of elite aboriginal activism since the 1960’s. Aborigines must have separate lands, separate health services, separate education, separate housing, separate welfare services,  separate laws, separate judicial arrangements and never-ceded aboriginal sovereignty.

Much of the rhetoric around this approach utilises words like justice, truth, recognition, reconciliation, reparations, rightful place, treaty, Makarrata, sovereignty and self determination.  These are notions with a legalistic character. The most ambitious expression of this legalistic-separationist approach to aboriginal policy was the Voice proposal which sought to alter our constitution to provide special provisions in perpetuity for people who identify as aborigines and for no other reason.

The two approaches to policy are incompatible and mutually exclusive.

Which policy leads to the best outcomes; legalistic-separationist-special provisions or equality-engagement ?

As a result of the naturalistic experiment  of aboriginal policy since 1967 we now know that the majority of aborigines who  opted for equality and engagement have become part of the mainframe and have achieved a good quality of life in the urban middle class.

An unfortunate minority find themselves stranded in remote outstations where they were supposed to enjoy the benefits of aboriginal culture untrammelled by colonial overlords.

These people have had the full dose of separation and special provisions. The outcome has been a disaster. They are caught in a poverty trap, enfeebled by welfare dependency and ravaged by internecine violence.

The legalistic-separationist-special provisions experiment has failed.

The equality-engagement  approach has been successful.

Now we can cut through the  post-referendum recriminations and argy-bargy about what comes next.

We already know what needs to come next. The evidence is in.

The task is conceptually quite straightforward.

For the majority (70-80%) of urbanised aborigines who are already part of the mainframe of society no action is required or desirable.

For the minority (20-30%) of aborigines who are trapped in the purgatory of dysfunctional remote communities we can offer affirmative action plans which will help these people become part of the mainframe.

In crafting these plans we need to be mindful of what governments and official policies can and cannot achieve. Neither governments nor policy initiatives can tell individual people what they should hope for, think, believe or do. Governments can create legal frameworks within which individuals can make their own decisions and governments can support some of those decisions financially.

So, with these thoughts in mind, here are my three suggestions for a post referendum plan B.

1. Combine all aboriginal and mainstream health, welfare, education, housing, legal and other services. This could start on a voluntary basis if initially a region elected to trial combining services with an evaluation programme over 5 years. The process to include all services might take 20 years.

Combining aboriginal and mainstream services will provide clients with a staff cohort having greater breadth and depth of knowledge and experience than is possible with separated services.

 Part of the process will be evaluation of services as to outcomes and ensuring services are provided on the basis of need not ethnic identification.

2. Enable private ownership of property on lands currently under corporate ownership acquired through aboriginal land rights legislation.  Private property ownership is one of the bedrock characteristics of modern society. Without secure private property ownership individuals cannot have their own home and have little opportunity to make any kind of capital investment which might allow private enterprise to flourish.

I envisage the creation of a land rights and native title commission with authority to host the necessary negotiations and present actionable proposals to government.

3. Some people might decide they would prefer to move out of a remote settlement to an urban setting with more opportunities for education, employment, health care and personal enterprise.

One way to support this would be by funding internal migration through a voluntary  affirmative action programme.  This could provide a grant of money sufficient for a family to acquire a house and land at median price in a regional city plus financial assistance during the post relocation adjustment period.

These three suggestions are practical. They are achievable. They are specific. They will provide disadvantaged people with opportunities not previously available. They will expand the framework within which people in remote areas can evolve their lifestyle.

They will not fix every problem by next Tuesday. The sorry state of aboriginal policy today has taken 50 years to evolve. It might take that much time again to rectify the situation.

Good public policy does not have to be dramatic or revolutionary. At best it is like the rudder on a supertanker. If we turn that rudder just one degree the ship will arrive at a destination thousands of kilometres from the one originally considered.

Given opportunities it is the initiative of individuals and families which will gradually make the big changes.

There are some things which we would do well to stop trying as they have failed.

Chasing after rainbows like recognition and reconciliation has not delivered any useful outcome.

Setting targets for “closing the gap” has failed without the practical means of reaching those targets.

There are two other things which I propose as part of a plan B initiative.

One is to delete the question on the census form about aboriginality. Collection of this data has not served a useful purpose for people who are aborigines and it has provided perverse incentives for people who are not aborigines. Various anecdotal estimates reported in the public domain have suggested that the number of fake aborigines who ticked the box at the 2021 census might be somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000.   

The other is to repeal S51(26) of the constitution. This is the race power.

I put the view that the notion of humans being divided into various races is obsolete, contributes nothing useful to the Australian polity and provides perverse incentives for activists to divide our country into artificial sectarian categories. This will require yet another referendum for which there will be little appetite by the people.

However I think the Commonwealth Government could publish a white paper offering the opinion that the concept of race is now obsolete and the wording of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 effectively makes S51(26)  a dead letter.

There is a precedent for this in Section 25 of the constitution which is regarded as a dead letter as it contravenes the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 and the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, 1969.

I am a retired psychiatrist not a lawyer but I could readily advance an argument that S51(26) also contravenes the Racial Discrimination Act and the International Convention. 

Here is an excerpt from the Racial Discrimination Act. The emphasis is mine.

9  Racial discrimination to be unlawful

             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

 

Andrew Smallman,  October 2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noel Pearson's Gough Whitlam oration 2013 His views have changed. Why ? 11 October 2023

 

Whitlam Institute, University of Western Sydney  13 November 2013.

Here is an excerpt from Noel Pearson’s oration in 2013 which I think is highly relevant to his passionate advocacy for the Voice proposal to be put to a referendum of the people of Australia on 14 October 2023.

I have no problem with people changing their minds about matters of public importance.

However in the context of debate about the Voice proposal, I have not seen in the public domain any acknowledgement by Mr Pearson that his position on a range of matters appears to have changed in the 10 years since 2013. These include racial discrimination in the Constitution, the failure of race-based solutions to aboriginal disadvantage, the negative effects of well intended policies and the failure of policy to hold indigenous people to the same standards as other Australians.

In 2013 Mr Pearson said “ A person should be rewarded on their merits and assisted in their needs. Race and indigeneity should be irrelevant to matters of public welfare and government assistance.”

Yet in 2023 in the lead-up to the Voice vote he has frequently insisted that indigeneity is the all-important issue.

He said in 2013 “ We need to move from a position of racial discrimination in law and public policy to one of individual equality before the law”.

The words spoken by Mr Pearson in 2013 have been repeated, almost word-for-word by advocates of the No case in 2023.

Here follows the excerpt:

The emphases are mine. I have viewed the video of the address on the website of the Institute and the transcript appears to be an accurate record of Mr Pearson’s words.

“For the most part, our Constitution is fine. It has set up the legal framework for a stable, prosperous democracy in Australia. It is – mostly – written in neutral democratic language. It contains no gender bias. It makes no mention of preferred sexuality. It contains no religious bias. It is primarily a fair and just document, and creates a fair and just democratic system. Except in two respects.

There are two problems in our Constitution. The first is the non-recognition of Indigenous peoples. The second is racial discrimination: our Constitution still contains provisions which allow governments to discriminate on the basis of race. Prior to the 1967 referendum, Indigenous peoples were explicitly excluded from the Constitution. Section 127 prevented Indigenous people from being counted in the Census. Indigenous people were also excluded from the scope of s 51(xxvi), the Race Power. The 1967 referendum reversed this exclusion by deleting s 127 and deleting the exclusion in s 51(xxvi).

Ironically, however, the Constitution now makes no mention of Indigenous peoples whatsoever. As a founding, historical document, our Constitution is inadequate. Mabo overturned the doctrine of terra nullius in Australian domestic law. But our Constitution fails to recognize that this land was not empty when the British arrived. There is no mention of the Indigenous contribution to Australia’s heritage and history.

The second problem is that the Constitution contains racially discriminatory provisions which enable governments to treat Australian citizens differently on the basis of race. Section 25 contemplates barring races from voting. S 51(xxvi) gives the Commonwealth the power to pass race-based laws – whether positive or adverse.

This allowance and promotion of racial discrimination is at odds with fundamental tenets of democracy: individual equality before the law, the rule of law (in that the same rules should apply to each individual regardless of colour or ethnicity), and the idea that each person’s vote should be equal. The racial discrimination in our Constitution is an undemocratic error. On the issue of race, our founding fathers erred.

Their error was based on outdated factual and moral beliefs, now known to be incorrect. Racial categorizations between human beings, we now know, have no scientific basis. Race should no longer, therefore, have any legal or policy application. We now understand that there is only one race: the human race. Most would now agree that treating citizens differently on the basis of race is unfair. This is why removal of racial discrimination from the Constitution has strong public support.

The race-based approach has also been unsuccessful in addressing the problems we face in Indigenous affairs. This practical failure has had its roots in the philosophical understandings that underpin the race-based approach. Race is a colonial concept. Inherent in the idea of race is the notion that some races are superior and some are inferior. The incorrect notion that Indigenous people belong to an inferior or incapable race has arguably had a poisonous effect on Indigenous policy, law and, consequently, Indigenous people.

While in the past there was much adverse discrimination against Indigenous people on the basis of race, now there is positive discrimination – well intentioned – but often with adverse results. Cape York Institute’s work in welfare reform has shown us this all too clearly. The race-based approach has perpetuated low expectations and undermined personal responsibility.

Consequently, as many Indigenous leaders have argued, the law and public policy often fails to hold Indigenous Australians to the same responsibilities and expectations as other Australians. This attitude does Indigenous people a great disservice.

We must unequivocally reject the idea that Indigenous people are innately or biologically disadvantaged. Indigenous people are not an inferior race. Yes, Indigenous people are for the most part socially and economically disadvantaged due to past discrimination, dispossession and other contemporary factors. And yes, we should do everything we can to assist disadvantaged people, black or white. But we should do so on the basis of individual need – not race. A person is not automatically disadvantaged just because he or she is Indigenous. A person should be rewarded on their merits, and assisted in their needs. Race, and Indigeneity, should be irrelevant to matters of public welfare and government assistance.

We need to move from Indigenous non-recognition to recognition. And we need to move from a position of racial discrimination in law and public policy, to one of individual equality before the law.”

 

I think that many Australians would agree with most of what Mr Pearson has to say here, especially about all of us being equal in law regardless of race or indigeneity.

The only matter on which I hold a contrary view is about constitutional recognition of any ethnic group. The Constitution does not mention any racial or ethnic or religious or any other particular group of people. In my view there is no good reason for it to do so.

I am well aware that many prominent Australians are saying in in 2023 that they would support the insertion into the Constitution of some form of words giving “recognition” to aborigines  (if anybody can figure out who is an aborigine)  or indigenous people (if anybody can define what indigenous means) or firstnationspeoples (if anybody knows what that means) but the old adage “be careful what you wish for” applies. At the very least our leaders should  subject this wobbly notion to a long term process of constitutional review before promising anything.

End

 

 

 

The 1967 referendum put the wrong question, with bad outcomes for some people 22 September 2023

 

The Australian Constitution was written in the last decade of the 19^th Century and  became the lawful basis of the newly formed Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.

One of the main tasks of the constitution was and still is, to specify the respective powers and responsibilities of the States and the Commonwealth.

Section 51 of the Constitution lists the legislative powers of the (Commonwealth) parliament.

As written in the original,  Section 51(26) gave the Commonwealth the power to make laws for the people of any race except aborigines. This is often referred to as the “race power”.  We must remember that in the 19^th Century it was believed that there were several different “races” of humans,  that some races were inferior and required special laws for their “protection”. From what, has not always been clear.

We now know that all humans are of the same “race” or species, to use a more biologically relevant word. Some minor biological variations between ethnic groups have been demonstrated, for instance with respect to external appearance and  glucose tolerance,  but in general all ethnic groups have equal potential for personal development given equal opportunity.

The first half of the 20^th Century saw a marked increase in aboriginal activism in Australia. Many individuals and groups lobbied strongly for better treatment of aborigines. Some sought equality, others wanted special provisions. All sought to change the Constitution in the belief that this would improve the lives of aborigines.

But what change should that be ?

I put the view that S51(26) is a dead letter and could reasonably have been understood as such in 1967.  Why ? because the notion that there are separate “races” of humans is false and was known to be false or at least unproven, in 1967. The “race power”  of S51(26) is meaningless because the notion of different “races” is without foundation in evidence.

In the event the notion of S51(26) as a dead letter did not enter public discourse in the period leading up to the referendum.  I guess that was not unexpected as the notion of “race” still had traction in the public arena even though there was no scientific basis for it.

Section 127 was repealed in 1967, as it should have been, but inexplicably Section 25 was left intact.

In the 1960’s aborigines seeking equality would likely have preferred to remove the race power altogether by repealing S51(26), S127 and S25.

But those seeking protection and special provisions for aborigines would have been better served by amending S51(26) to remove the exclusion of aborigines.

I do not know what discussions went on behind the scenes but the protection and special provisions advocates got their way. 

The 1967 referendum was conducted in what seems to me to have been a very strange fashion. There was no constitutional convention. There appears to have been no public debate about the respective merits of repeal vs amendment of S51(26).  Nobody advanced a No case as far as I can tell from the public record.

I have to admit feeling a bit paranoid about this. The case for repeal of S51(26) was actually very strong. It would have been the constitutional  reform most likely to advance the quest for equality.

In 1967 I was a resident medical officer at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, working way too many hours a week and trying to organise marriage and career and life and all that, so I really had no head space for aboriginal matters. I can’t remember but I probably voted Yes because the No option was not supported.

But now I am retired and have time to think. And the more I think about it the more it appears the whole 1967 referendum process was rigged in the back rooms.

I think the course of history shows us well enough that when a big issue is decided in  back rooms the outcome is almost always less durable than when all the ramifications are openly debated in the public domain. That is the essence of the democratic system which as Winston Churchill said is the worst form of government except for all the others which have been tried.

Now in 2023, very few people who find themselves anywhere near a microphone or a camera dare to suggest that Australia might have made a big mistake in 1967.

But it really was a big mistake and I will try to explain what I mean.

The 1967 amendment to  S51(26) had two effects, legal and ideological.

The legal effects are easy enough to understand at least in their basic form although perhaps  not as to the long term ramifications.

In December 1976 the federal parliament passed the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It was the first legislation in Australia that enabled aborigines to claim the right to legal title for land where traditional ownership could be proven.

It appears that this particular law would not have been contemplated without the provisions of the 1967 referendum as aborigines excluded from S51(26) in 1901 were deemed to be a “race”. 

However had S51(26) been repealed, presumably the  Commonwealth or States could pass laws granting legal title to the traditional occupants of defined parcels of land. I think this would be preferable as it goes to the relevant matter which is traditional occupancy and not the irrelevant issue which is the “race” or ethnic affiliation of the applicants.

The Commonwealth Native Title Act was passed in 1993.  

Native title is one of the most oddly named concepts in Australia’s history. It is actually a type of permissive land and water use legislation available to traditional occupants for specified purposes.

This legislation refers to aborigines but I can see no pressing need for it to have done so. The substantive matter is the claim by a group of people to traditional use of a parcel of land, land, not the “race” of the group.

I believe the ideological effects of the 1967 referendum have been far greater and   more pervasive, leading to long term damage to those it was supposed to help.

Think about this:   If as a nation we decide that some group of people require special provisions in the Constitution this clearly signals that we believe they have some kind of permanent disability or incapacity and that this disability will be transmitted to their children and grandchildren… regardless of  the effectiveness or otherwise of the special provisions.

The consequences of this ideological mind set have been disastrous for a significant minority of aborigines who have been unable to escape the debilitating effects of welfare dependency  and low expectation.

The 1967 referendum ensured perpetuation of the myth of aborigines as an inferior race. In the absence of actual evidence supporting the idea it required stewardship by an influence group. This was initially the white elites but in 1967 the baton of stewardship was transferred to the aboriginal elites.

We need to ask: how and why have aboriginal elites promoted the notion of aborigines as an inferior race?

As to the how, we understand that aboriginal elites are not going to come out and say openly that aborigines are an inferior race. They manage this problem by inventing notions which when used as a basis for aboriginal policy have the effect of treating aborigines as if they are inferior.

One of these notions is “cultural safety”. If we google “cultural safety” a range of definitions and explanations comes up. In practice it has meant that anytime a person identifying as aborigine claims to have been treated in a manner not to that person’s liking by a health, welfare or other  service, aboriginal elites demand and get funding for separate aboriginal-only services.

Another notion favoured by aboriginal elites is “intergenerational trauma”. They had to invent this to explain why the children and grandchildren of displaced and dispossessed aborigines need special provisions in perpetuity.

We know from long term sociological studies that dysfunctional parents regardless of ethnicity neglect and mistreat their children who when they become adults are more likely than usual to neglect and mistreat their children…and so on. This is a real type of intergenerational trauma which is transmitted by adverse experiences.  As the generations advance, the tendency is towards reversion to the population average.

However proponents of the notion of intergenerational trauma as it applies to aborigines have advanced theories of  genetic or epigenetic biological transmission of enfeeblement affecting successive generations following the original trauma. This is controversial to put it mildly.

What about the millions of people who migrated to Australia after suffering from war, torture, displacement and dispossession in their country of origin ?    These people do not seem inclined to claim special provisions in perpetuity due to a hypothesised biological disability caused by intergenerational trauma.

What about the why ?

I think this is now very clear for all to see. In a word, it’s about power.

 Aboriginal elites have played on the good nature of ordinary Australians to advance the notion that aborigines need special laws, special health services, special welfare services, preferential  access to training courses, special justice systems……..and on and on it goes without end.

All these services must be administered by aborigines, operated by aborigines, for aborigines using taxpayers money mainly from not-aborigines.

Aboriginal elites seek to justify this administrative structure with the concept of  “self determination”. What this actually means seems to depend on what the activist of the day wants it to mean, rather like another favourite of aboriginal activists, “rightful place”.

Nobody has ever shown that aborigines actually need such exclusive services or that the care they receive is any better than they could get at a generic service down the road. Actually all the evidence such as it exists is to the contrary.

As aboriginal activists repeat over and over,  “the gap” is not closing. This suggests rather strongly that the sum total of all the special services for aborigines has affected them adversely not beneficially.

Now they want a special Voice enshrined in the Constitution, setting up yet another aboriginal bureaucracy and power structure.

And so the wheel turns full circle.

In the 19^th Century, white colonial elites regarded aborigines as an inferior “race” requiring “protection”.

Now we see that aboriginal elites have taken over the task of treating aborigines as if they were feeble and in need of the giant protection racket which the aboriginal welfare industry has become.

This has been a disaster for the minority of aborigines (about 20% of them) who live in remote settlements and some outback towns. These people suffer from a very poor quality of life. Their poverty has actually been entrenched and maintained by the very policies and practices which were supposed to benefit aborigines but have in fact promoted welfare dependency and loss of personal initiative.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and littered with bad policies.

It will take an almighty national effort by all Australians to unravel the dysfunctional shambles into which aboriginal policy has fallen.

An integral part of that process will be repeal of Section 51(26) of the constitution or at least acknowledgement that it is a dead letter.

Andrew Smallman Mona Vale September 2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to lose friends and influence people. It's easy: Insult and denigrate them 18 September 2023

 

Australians will vote on a referendum question about the creation of an indigenous Voice to parliament and the executive on October 14,  2023.

One very notable feature of “debate” about the Voice proposal is the propensity of Voice advocates to respond to questions about the Voice or disagreement with the proposal by hurling personal abuse at questioners or unbelievers.  Our experience teaches us  that when proponents of an idea behave this way they have no valid case. If they had a valid case they would patiently repeat it, in detail, as often as required to get their message across.

Prof. Megan Davis said that questioners are illiterate because they were in her opinion  incapable of reading the Langton/Calma document which would supposedly answer all their questions. In fact that document, which I have read,  raises many more questions than it answers.    

When the Nationals declared their opposition to the Voice, Noel Pearson referred to the Nationals Party as “a squalid little party” and its  leader David Littleproud as “a kindergarten kid”.

He castigated Senator Jacinta Price as “punching down on blackfellas” having been “drawn into a tragic redneck celebrity vortex” orchestrated by the Institute for Public Affairs and the Centre for Independent Studies.  

When former Prime Minister John Howard expressed a negative appraisal of the Voice,  Noel Pearson responded with …”but who can arrogate to themselves that kind of presumption that their own views should be the view that prevails ?”   Mr Pearson appeared to be unaware that he was doing exactly that which he claimed Mr Howard was doing. 

Actually  Mr Howard was simply expressing his considered response to the Voice proposal but  Mr Pearson’s reaction shows just how intolerant are Voice proponents to any form of negative feedback and how they refuse to engage in reasonable debate or discussion about any of the issues.

When The Nationals took a stand against the Voice Prof Marcia Langton said in response       

 “We have to take these matters seriously. This is too important to play nasty electoral politics about … it would be terribly unfortunate for all Australians if the debate sinks into a nasty, eugenicist, 19th century-style of debate about the superior race versus the inferior race.”

I do not pretend to know what Prof Langton thought she meant by this strange outburst but it is clear she was attacking the messenger, not addressing the message.

Recently Prof Langton said that the No campaign is based on “…base racism…or sheer stupidity”

Leader of the federal opposition Peter Dutton asked the Government to answer 15 questions about the Voice proposal. The questions were not answered and the PM’s response was to accuse Mr Dutton of “trying to confuse the issue” and of engaging in ”cheap culture war stunts”.

The latest and perhaps most egregious contribution to the litany of insults comes from Geoffrey Robertson, an Australian lawyer resident in England,  who authored an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 September 2023.

The headline of the piece reads “ If the No wins, the world will think we’re racist anyway”.   

This suggests an extraordinary level of grandiosity from Mr Robertson who appears to believe that he possesses some mysterious superpower which gives him the ability to know what “the world” thinks.

He said “However much we may enjoy the spotlight on the world stage, the danger is that on October 15 and afterward, it will be interpreted by outsiders, whether we like it or not, as the vote of an ignorant and racist populace.”

My comment on this:

First, I think it highly unlikely that those of us who support the No vote have any interest in the world stage with or without a spotlight. That is more likely to be Mr Robertson’s preferred performance arena.

Second, Mr Robertson is telling Australians who vote No that they are “an ignorant and racist populace” but is doing so in a manner which is sneaky and disingenuous by pretending that this adverse assessment is coming from nameless  “outsiders” whoever that might be.

At least Prof Langton and Noel Pearson speak their insults directly and take responsibility for them.  

Mr Pearson has even acknowleged that some of his outbursts might  have damaged the referendum Yes case.  Indeed they have.

 Update 6 October 2023:  At a Yes rally attended by the prime minister yesterday, veteran broadcaster Ray Martin accused  people who don't know (how the Voice will actually work)  and vote No of being dinosaurs or dickheads too lazy to do a google search.