CRACE-CANBERRA'S NEWEST SLUM OR AN URBAN PARADISE?

CRACE-CANBERRA'S NEWEST  SLUM OR 

AN URBAN PARADISE?

by Dave Wheeler

    Before discussing the new Canberra suburb of Crace I will say that Canberra has changed a lot since I first arrived at the age of 8 turning 9 in 1961. Although I am conscious of the fact that sometimes when people look back in time they think of the positive things they experienced and forget the negatives and thus give themselves a false impression of what things were really like, I can’t help believing that Canberra now delivers most people a poorer quality of life than it did in my youth. I can back up my beliefs with some relevant facts.

   Let's take housing and housing affordability. Buying a house cannot be compared to the purchase of items such as jewelry or items which have a limited use, such as electronic gadgetry. Having one’s own territory is basic to our species, be it collectively or individually, and it is something most humans have always had and something which usually improves a person's quality of life. And buying a house with a reasonably sized backyard is something which was well within the reach of most Australians up until the mid 1990’s.

  In 1982 a basic 12 square house with a backyard of around 800 square metres in an outer suburb of Canberra was easily affordable for most people, and this also applied to most of the rest of urban Australia. During this time period a person earning around $23,000.00 pa (which is what a tradesman would have earned on a 38 or 40 hour week or what an unskilled person would have earned for the same hours with penalty rates) could buy a house of the latter description in an outer Canberra suburb for around $46,000.00. Low interest government loans were also available provided your income was not too high. 

   If you don’t believe me have a look at 1981 copies of the Canberra Times where jobs and houses are advertised. I know this to be the case because I bought such a house in 1981.

   A tradesman living in Canberra today would have to be on around $220,000.00 pa for such a house to be as affordable, because the same house I bought in Chisholm in 1982 (a modest 3 bedroom 12 square house without an ensuite on an 800 square metre block and still located in an outer suburb) would sell for around $440,000.00.

   Houses were even more affordable in the 60’s, and people were often able to get 100% low interest government loans to make them even easier to pay off. It was also easier to rent a government-owned house and they could usually be purchased with a 100% low interest government loan after a couple of years of renting. 

   Govies also did not have the same stigma as they do today as they were not reserved for the very poor. I know several school teachers who were living in government houses and who later purchased them with cheap government loans during the sixties and seventies. There is no way a schoolteacher would be given a government house today.

   Pig Iron Bob Menzies, not long after the war when building materials became more easily available, was determined to make the purchase of a basic house affordable for all working Australians because he was of the belief that if people owned their own houses it would stop the spread of communism. He achieved his goal, and maybe housing affordability, plus virtually 100% employment due to our having high tariffs, did make people less politically active than they would have otherwise been simply because life was easy and most people were satisfied with their lot.

  (Menzies' protectionist economic philosophy was a long way to the left of the left of today's Labor Party or today's Greens. High tariffs also reduced greenhouse gases considerably as it meant items had less distance to travel between producer and consumer.)

   Today even houses with tiny backyards, such as are found in much of the Canberra suburb of Crace, are far less affordable than a house with an 800 square metre block was in the early 80’s. Some of the blocks in Crace are as small as 250 square metres and I have not seen many larger than 550 square metres. About 450 square metres seems to be the most common size, which is tiny relative to the size of most Canberra blocks up until relatively recently. 

   (The issue of our having smaller blocks is very controversial and I can recall not long ago seeing signs advertising Crace which had been defaced by having the letters "Dis" sprayed on them before the name "Crace."

   Having said that, presumably because it has so many tiny blocks, I was not surprised to read an article in the Canberra Times on the 17/10/13 which claims that Crace is second to Charnwood as the most affordable suburb in the ACT to buy a house, with the medium price being $392,308.00. Charnwood's cheapness can be explained by the fact it is an outer suburb and a previous administration made the enormous mistake of placing a large number of government houses in close proximity to each other, thereby increasing the crime rate. I am not sure how many govies there are in Crace or how the presence or absence of govies may affect the price of Crace blocks.) 

     We are now seeing in Canberra continuing "infill” in an attempt to Gungahlinise the place and thus ensure most residents will eventually be living cheek-by-jowl like they do in much of Gungahlin. 

   Normal sized blocks anywhere in Canberra are now expensive, and as a result pensioners who own houses in the inner suburbs like Braddon and Ainslie are being forced to move out because they cannot afford to pay the hefty land rates, which have risen at a far higher pace than the CPI.

  POSSIBLE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH LIVING IN A HOUSE WITH A SMALL BACKYARD AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO NEIGHBOURS  

  Our local Liberal, Labor and Greens politicians think living cheek-by-jowl is great, although probably only for people other than themselves. The main reason they like it is because when a given area of land is sold to a developer and the developer divides it into small blocks it will mean more revenue per hectare for the ACT government in the form of initial stamp duty, (even if stamp duty has been reduced), but more so in ongoing rates. As previously stated, land rates have increased at a far higher pace than the CPI and they are destined to continue on that path. It also means less costs in infrastructure. 

   One would think the Lib's by being in opposition would have something to say, but they have always been in the pocket of big business and they will also grab the revenue if they ever get into power, (which is unlikely because of the way they tried to reduce the pay and conditions of ACT public servants when they were in office).

   The Lib's, Labor and Greens also rarely speak out against the destruction of the buildings I grew up with, and as a result I have seen Civic turn from a quiet and relaxed place, where one could park easily for free, to an absolute sewer. The word “vibrant” is now used to describe the place, which I see as a sickening euphemism for the words hectic, noisy and overcrowded. I do my best to avoid Civic and I think that if Walter Burley Griffin came back to life and saw how far Canberra has deviated from his plan he would vomit. 

   In regard to our loss of heritage and the matter of wastage, I’ve seen some very historic buildings in the Civic area destroyed over the previous 4 decades and I have seen on certain blocks 3 or 4 buildings erected and destroyed during that period. Think of the energy that went into making those buildings and the CO2 that was produced with every rebuild! And it continues!

   I believe most members of the ACT Heritage Council are a bunch of gutless wonders because I see their stance as blatantly pro development considering what they have knocked back for heritage listing, the Turner PCYC being an example. I have been told by what I believe is a reputable source that some Council members are on the take, but I am unable to provide any evidence to back that claim. Yet even the ACT Heritage Council had their heritage listing of St Pat’s school in Braddon overturned. I suppose the historic Northbourne Oval will be the next to go. 
   The ACT government has recently announced that they may not open the Civic Pool again because of the extreme cost of fixing a leak. This is really insulting our intelligence. How gullible would you have to be to believe that? if they want to bring in the bulldozers and sell off the land why don't they have the guts to just say it? I wonder if certain ACT politicians are having their palms greased.

   Where this is leading is to my being contacted by a person who is also concerned by the relatively recent trend in Canberra of building houses on tiny blocks, particularly in new suburbs, and with "infill." He believes the ACT government is trying to con us into believing that living like sardines will improve our quality of life (social engineering) and that we have no choice other than to accept smaller blocks for environmental reasons. 

     He sent me a link to a letter to the editor in the Canberra Times which described the new Gungahlin suburb of Crace as looking like “a new slum," presumably because it has a large number of very small blocks within it. 

   The writer was commenting on an article by Canberra Times journalist Emma Macdonald entitled "Search for World's Happiest Suburb starts in Crace, Canberra," which appeared on the 10/9/13.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/search-for-worlds-happiest-suburb-starts-in-crace-canberra-20130909-2tgk9.html

   Emma was reporting that a team of University of Canberra academics is attempting through the ''The Crace Study'' to find out if the communal design of Crace will have long-term benefits for resident's health and wellbeing. Apparently homes are built around communal and recreational areas and people regularly meet in places such as the communal vegetable garden. The article said in part “The world will be watching, with the World Health Organisation a keen observer of strategies that could be replicated in future suburbs around the globe.”

    The letter-writer seems to be sceptical of the study, as was the person who sent me the clippings. The writer seems to suspect that the developer or the ACT government or some other body which may benefit financially from the project directly or indirectly may be funding the survey. 

    The letter-writer seemed to be implying that if this is the case the survey may not be done with open-minded detachment by the academics (it may be a con-job) and it may be a case of "He who pays the piper calls the tune," meaning whoever pays for the survey will get their preferred result. 

     And as I have suggested, the developer may benefit by being allowed to sell tiny blocks, but more so the ACT government by way of initial stamp duty and ongoing rates, given that the rates are increasing so dramatically and given that it would earn more per hectare in rates with tiny blocks than it would with normal sized blocks. 

   The letter also stated in part "I call upon these academics to assure us the research is not being funded by a developer, the ACT government or any other body which gains financially by selling as many blocks as possible."

   At the date this story was first posted, the 22/10/13, I was not of the opinion that the academics tried to answer the question through the Canberra Times, although I was told by one of them at a later stage that they tried to answer the letter but the Canberra Times chose to not publish it. 

  

   Above is a photo of Crace's spacious housing, showing residents hugging each other and displaying a sense of community. How far would kids have to walk to kick a footy? I am sceptical about virtually anywhere in the Western world today being able to promote a real sense of community having experienced an early childhood without TV and then having seen how its introduction had such an adverse effect on Canberra's sense of community. This was brought home to me when I spent 3 months in Tonga and 4 months in the Cook Islands in 1975 prior to those places having TV or videos. People were far more likely to visit and talk to each other instead of vegetating in front of a box. Things have got progressively worse in the Western world in regard to the destruction of any sense of community with the introduction of multi-TV channels, mobile phones, the device I am using at the moment and other forms of electronic entertainment. These are the "bread and circuses" which stupefy people and allow them to continue to be shat on without them even realising it.

   In relation to the Crace study, as well as asking some pertinent questions I will present what I see as some possible "confounding variables" which could arise when the results of the survey are known. I called upon the academics at the University of Canberra who are conducting the survey to email me by way of the above contact button and explain why the points I have raised may not be an issue. I assured them when this post was first published that I would publish what they have to say in full as soon as it came to my attention. I did receive responses to the concerns I raised, although they were not all answered. 
The concerns I outlined were as follows:

1/Who is funding the survey? I contacted Professor Helen Berry, who I believe is heading the study or is the head of the university's "Healthy and Sustainable Communities Research Program," and therefore possibly overseeing the study, about this matter. She assured me the study is not funded or undertaken on behalf of the developer, even though the developer provided a very small degree of in-kind support such as advertising the study on its website and printing information leaflets about the study for residents. She also explained that they have a written agreement with the developer asserting and assuring the independence of their research and that it was prepared with the active support of the developer. 

   She did not however, tell me who is funding the project, so I wrote back to her assuming it was not being funded by any body which may benefit directly or indirectly from the outcome of the survey, but she did not write back to me assuring me I was correct. And even if the developer is not providing a direct injection of funds to the survey is the assistance he/she/it is providing saving the university a lot of money?

    Why I asked this was because I received from a mate an invitation he received to participate in the study. I am presuming it was sent by the developer and it offers those eligible to participate in the survey a chance to enter a draw for prizes if they participate. 

    What I was asking was that if we accept that the developer is not funding the study directly, if the developer was not promoting the study how would the University of Canberra have got anyone to participate? Would it have meant the academics had to knock on doors to get people to participate or pay others to knock on doors? Surely the developer's assistance would have saved them a lot of time and therefore a lot of money in the form of wages in this respect? 

 

    In summarising the point I was making, it may well be that the Uni of Canberra's survey is not being funded by vested interests, but if this is the case we need to be assured this is the case, because any study which is being funded directly or indirectly by a body which may benefit from a preferred result is not worth two bob. I say this because many people, including me, believe in the adage, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." 

  (I have since discovered Professor Berry was overseas when I first wrote to her, hence the delay in a response, and after having made contact with the UC their response to the matter of funding is shown at the base of this post).

2/ I would have thought the survey would have been confined to those who have lived in Crace for more than a year in order for such folk to have been able to give a true opinion on the matter, but I am led to believe this is not the case and that even people just intending to purchase in Crace are allowed to participate. If I am correct how could such people know what it was like to live in Crace if they have never lived there?
  (Professor Berry bought in Crace, which should disqualify her from carrying out the study considering her property may rise in value if the study suggests the residents have an increased quality of life. I strongly suspect that would be her preferred result, and if so there would be a real conflict of interest).

3/ Those who live in Crace would be mainly those who have moved there by choice, as opposed to someone like me who would not choose to live in Crace. Therefore, it would be more than likely they will not speak as negatively about the place as someone like me who would not go there by choice. If this is the case the usefulness of the survey may be limited to the extent that it would not necessarily mean a broad cross section of Australia's population would enjoy living in a suburb designed like Crace even if the results indicated that Crace residents enjoyed living there.

4/ If people have put their life savings towards a house in Crace are they going to admit to themselves let alone those conducting the survey that their neighbourhood does not deliver them a high quality of life?

5/ Is the survey going to find the mean level of contentment of the varying categories of people who live in Crace, ie single people, married people, married people with and without children, people with and without pets, migrants from a variety of countries, retirees, all of the former who are either renters or house owners, etc, or is it going to gauge the level of contentment for each of a myriad of groups?

  I say this because one person's hell can be another's paradise, and I can see for instance that someone raised in high-density London, Shanghai, Hong Kong or Calcutta would be more likely to find living cheek-by-jowl in Crace acceptable, whereas someone raised in Australia in a house with a normal sized backyard may be far less likely.

6/ Is the same survey being conducted in older suburbs in Canberra with normal sized backyards where residents are able to keep dogs, throw parties, have their kids run around while they are being watched, plant fruit trees, etc, to compare the quality of life experienced between the suburbs? If not why not?

7/ If I had just bought in Crace I would be aware that if the survey revealed that the residents of Crace were happier than anywhere else in Australia it may improve dramatically the value of my property. For that reason I would be tempted to tell the survey I loved the suburb even if it made me feel as miserable as a bandicoot. Has this question been addressed?

8/ Given that so many Australians own dogs or would like to own a dog if they could, living in one of the tiny blocks found in Crace would ensure a moral person did not purchase a dog because in doing so it would be cruel to the dog and a pain for neighbours who would be in close proximity to its faeces and possibly its barking. This is not so much of a problem in suburbs which contain blocks of a normal size. With tiny blocks a dog owner would have to be waiting with a spade for his dog to defecate so he could pick up the faeces immediately after it was laid to ensure its smell was not inhaled by a neighbour.

   I emailed Professor Helen Berry about this issue and asked her if they had consulted the RSPCA as well as the health authorities in regard to the keeping of dogs in Crace. She told me the survey was not focusing on pet ownership and they had not been in discussions with the RSPCA but she did not say why. This issue needs to be addressed because pet ownership is part of the Australian way of life, and when dogs are kept in small blocks the issues of hygiene and animal welfare are real.

9/ Many Australians do not like to live near government housing. It is not my intention to discuss whether this is because of blatant unwarranted prejudice and snobbery or whether it is because many Australians rightly or wrongly believe that government housing tenants are more likely to have social problems and are as such more likely to be unpleasant to live near.

    Australia's prejudices on this matter seems to be proven by the fact that privately-owned property adjoining or near government housing is worth considerably less than identical privately-owned property with little or no nearby government housing. For this reason it would seem that people living near government housing would be more likely to be dissatisfied with where they live than people who are not, and as such may be more likely to record a lower level of wellbeing. 

   In relation to Crace, I do not know what percentage of the houses are government-owned or how the government housing may be distributed. For all I know Crace may have no government housing at all. 

    Therefore, if the Crace survey is going to compare the level of wellbeing of Crace residents with the level of wellbeing of residents from other Canberra suburbs, it will need to establish how much government housing each suburb has on a percentage basis and how it is distributed. After doing so the survey would need to explain how the suburb's differences in government housing percentages and distribution and their differences in design were taken into account when comparing the levels of wellbeing of residents from each suburb. 

    In regard to the government housing tenants themselves, if they have a lower sense of wellbeing than other Australians because of them being on the lower rung of the socioeconomic ladder, it presents yet another reason for the survey having to take into account the percentage of government housing tenants in Crace compared to the percentage of government housing tenants in other Canberra suburbs. 

  I do not know if the Crace survey is addressing this issue or how it could be done.

IS THERE A CHOICE? 

  Okay, let's forget about the question of whether the Crace project has any worth or whether it is a con job and instead ask ourselves if we have a choice other than to live on small blocks. It is claimed that living cheek-by-jowl encourages energy efficiency and will help us save the planet from the effects of CO2, but does it?

  To answer that I will first say that there is good argument to suggest that the old suburban ideal of a quarter acre can already be very energy efficient if we can disconnect from the power grid, water and sewerage services and grow our own veggies, which some people have already done. 
   We already have the technology to do so, and if batteries which do not wear out are ever invented there will be a rush to disconnect. Those who live cheek-by-jowl in Crace may not have the capacity to fully benefit from disconnecting from all services should this technology become available. 

   

   The idea of local communal reservoirs which collect rain water could also be a solution as could be the case for local power production such as by way of wind turbines or solar technology. 

     Since writing this post I have been told there was an article in the Canberra Times which maintained that the temperature in the older leafier suburbs of Canberra is around 7 degrees lower than the newer sardine-like suburbs during heat waves due to there being more vegetation around the older houses. If so imagine the amount of power the residents of Crace will use on their air conditioning compared to those who live in the older suburbs during the summer months.

   The other alternative of course is for us to not increase Australia's population, because in doing so Canberra will grow far more slowly or not at all, and tiny blocks will not be necessary. 

  This however, would involve economists and federal politicians discarding their growth mantra in regard to the economy and population. (The Stable Population Party is the only political party which has done so, although no representative holds office). It would involve them accepting that nothing in the universe can grow forever, but unfortunately most politicians (other than the lone Labor voice of Kelvin Thomson) are too egotistical, bent or stupid to accept such a reality.

    To explain how we could jump off the growth train and alter our economic system to ensure we had full employment and were ecologically sustainable in the process would require a book, although Ernst Schumacher goes part of the way in explaining how it can be done in his literature.  

   Of course Canberra could go it alone and and send a strong message to our federal politicians by simply not releasing anymore land, thus leaving it to the Queanbeyan Council to either take up the local overflow from our ridiculously high level of immigration or to go the same way as Canberra. 

   Our local Labor, Liberal and Green politicians, who are puppets to big business, would not be in it, although there is a possibility the Greens could eventually be pressured into taking such a stance, because in the eyes of true conservationists their "big Australia" stance makes them look like absolute hypocrites who care little or nothing about future generations of Australians. I know several ex Green members who have resigned because of the Green's gutlessness on this issue and many current members who are trying to change things from within.

UPDATE-26/10/13 

   I emailed our pseudo Green, Shane Rattenbury, who amongst other things is our minister for housing, on the 26/10/13. I asked his office if the ACT government is partly or wholly funding the Crace study. I was told the Crace study was not being funded by the ACT government either partly or wholly.

FURTHER UPDATE-5/11/13-

  I had further communication with a person from the University of Canberra regarding the Crace Study who I will not name as I am paraphrasing what I have been told and I may get some information wrong. 

    I will now paraphrase what was communicated to me to the best of my ability.

    I was informed by a person involved in the Crace study that the University of Canberra is preparing a "summary explainer" regarding sources of research funding and how they approach their possible influence on their practice. I was told the explainer will be made available on their website when it is ready and that their website is 

http://www.canberra.edu.au/centres/ceraph/home .

     In regard to general points I made in this post I was told that the UC takes the issues I have raised seriously as does the person I communicated with, and that the UC has numerous sources of advice and regulation to assist researchers, as well as being subject to national regulations around research and ethics and financial accounting, and that they are all publicly available. In addition to this I was told that general information about their research centre and projects can be found at the previously shown link to their website.  

    I was told that in addition to working with colleagues at the UC and other universities sometimes non-academic partners are involved when it is possible and appropriate. I was told this may include representatives of government, industry, the non-profit sector and other representative groups. 

   The view expressed to me was that research is better designed, conducted, interpreted and shared if undertaken with suitable partners. 

   In regard to the continual job the researchers have of sourcing funding for research when it is required, I was led to believe that until a fairy godmother appears all they can do is seek funding from a wide variety of sources, including research funding bodies, and that, as previously stated, the conduct of such relationships is governed by numerous regulations and guidelines and that the partners are usually governed by similar regulations of their own. 

    I was told the personal practice of the person in charge of the Crace study is to make the source of funding procedure overt and that that person conducts bonafide research and applies scientific principles at all times in order to design and conduct the research. I was also told the interpretation and publication of research findings is not negotiable and made clear.

    In relation to the Crace Study, I was told that it has received no direct financial support at all from any source.

FURTHER UPDATE 4/10/16. 
If the questions I have raised were answered on the previously shown link to the Crace study website, as I was told they would be, I could not find where they were answered. Actually it took me to a Canberra Uni log in. I presume the site no longer exists. If I am wrong and the study and site still exist I am happy to publish the details of any update should someone in the know care to contact me. I strongly doubt I will be contacted.

FURTHER UPDATE 31/3/17
   On the ABC TV program on the 31/3/17, “ The Link”, Professor Helen Berry was interviewed about the Crace Study by Stan Grant. 
  I think Stan did an appalling job as a journo in regard to the questions he asked. He had no hesitation in getting stuck into Dick Smith last week regarding Dick wanting to stabilise our population, why did he not at least play the Devil’s advocate with Professor Berry? 
   As Professor Berry owns property in Crace why did he not ask her why she did not disqualify herself from the study and instead study somewhere else, given that her property value is likely to rise if the research indicates the people in Crace are happier than elsewhere?  Surely there is a conflict of interest there? If someone studied the health benefits of avocados and he had a large avocado farm is he likely to be objective? Studies like that are not worth two bob.
   Why did Grant not question the idea of Crace being designed to improve people’s wellbeing, as is the claim? It seems obvious to me Crace was designed to get as many blocks as possible into a given area of land to maximise the developer’s profit and to increase government revenue through stamp duty. 
  I also noticed professor Berry has an English accent. Most English live in built-up high density areas. If this was how Professor Berry lived when she was in England she may enjoy living like a sardine and it may be why she chose to live in Crace, but that does not mean Australians who were raised on their quarter acre also block feel that way.
   I look forward to reading the results of the Crace study and seeing if any of the points I have raised have been addressed.

 

Above are cheek by jowl dog boxes that are being made in Molonglo (September 2016), probably from a lot of prefab Chinese material. What an existence! Who wants to live like a battery hen?

Below is a photo of Hong Kong. The lowlife that governs the ACT (Labor, Canberra Liberals and Greens) would love to see us live like they do in Hong Kong. It would be really "vibrant."

PLEASE WATCH THE EMBEDDED YOUTUBE CLIP BELOW. IT SHOWS WHAT CANBERRA WILL PROBABLY BECOME WITHIN THE NEXT 50 YEARS. 

FOR MANY MORE MAINLY CANBERRA-BASED YARNS HIT THE "HOME" BUTTON UP THE TOP.

LEGALISED CHILD ABUSE AT SCHOOLS IN THE CANBERRA DISTRICT DURING THE 20TH CENTURY.

LEGALISED CHILD ABUSE AT SCHOOLS IN THE CANBERRA DISTRICT DURING THE 20TH CENTURY.

   Matters relating to very serious child abuse that occurred during the 20^th century have been brought to the public's attention during the last 20 years and are well-documented. I refer to the theft of Aboriginal kids, sexual abuse of kids in institutions and the abuse and virtual slavery of Pommie orphans who were placed in Australian institutions after WW2.
  It is because corporal punishment in schools during the 20th Century was mainstream, of a less immoral nature than child theft or sexual abuse and usually carried out with the permission of parents, the matter has been virtually ignored and is not at all well-documented. With this in mind the purpose of this particular yarn/rant is to record incidences of legalised child abuse in schools in the Canberra district during the 20th century which involved humiliating kids or perpetrating acts of physical violence upon them.
   It of course occurred throughout Australia during this period, but as this blog is Canberra and districts-centric I am confining the documentation to Canberra and surrounding districts. 


   Corporal punishment was a part of the culture at the time, and this was probably because of the biblical notion of sparing the rod and spoiling the child, although such ideology based on Christian dogma obviously spread into secular society.    
  I can recall while attending Maclean Public school in 2nd class (Year 2) seeing one particular lad whacked because he was writing with his left hand. Apparently there is some primitive association in Christianity between left handedness and Satan.
   In documenting abuse in Canberra and district schools I will start with the public school system. I will begin by recounting what my mum told me about the violence she witnessed while she attended a public school in Queanbeyan in the 1930’s, during the Depression.
   She recalled to me how during that period she saw poverty-stricken kids come to school in the winter with bare feet. Some kids had burst eardrums from untreated infections and others suffered rickets, goiter and other diseases caused by poor nutrition. 
   She also told me of one particular lad who came from a very poor family who was a bit slow, and at the age of around 7 or 8 he was regularly beaten over the knuckles for not being able to answer questions which were obviously far too difficult for him to answer. He would stand there sobbing, and of course my mum and other more sensitive kids suffered vicariously. She also told me of one little girl who was made to stand up inside a chimney and how the teacher beat her because she got soot on her dress.
   In regard to my own experiences, when I first came to Canberra in 1961 I was 8, turning 9 and in 3^rd class (Year 3) attending North Ainslie Primary. Not long after I arrived I received a hard caning (2 cuts) on the hand from a male teacher who held a senior position and I almost passed out from the pain and trauma.
   During my 4 years at North Ainslie I saw and experienced much in the way of physical and verbal violence towards kids. When in year 4 my mates and I were whacked regularly on the arse, usually 3 or 4 times, with a large blackboard ruler. It was very painful and left bruises. I suspect the perpetrator got a sexual thrill from it.
    The worst form of humiliation at North Ainslie I witnessed was that of a mate who, like me, had no interest in school. When he didn't know what a verb was he was asked to stand up for an extended period. Several kids from years below us were asked to come into the classroom and tell our class what a verb was in order to humiliate him by demonstrating how far behind he was in his work. I think he was caned after the humiliation but I am unsure. 
   Violence seemed completely acceptable in those times, or at least not taken too seriously. I can recall when I was in 4th class seeing a fight between a large kid in 6th class and a smaller kid about the same age, where the smaller kid was knocked unconscious. He was dragged away to the sick room by a teacher. Apparently the perpetrator received a couple of cuts of the cane, which would have been no more than what he would have received had he have been sent out of class for talking. Today such an offence would have been taken much more seriously. 
   I was contacted by a person who attended North Ainslie primary several years after me who had the following to say regarding physical abuse by way of the regular caning of a lad who may have turned out to be gay. If so it would have been the equivalent of caning a little girl. I have copied and pasted that person’s words below.
  "When I was a student at North Ainslie Primary School in the late 1960's the boys were often caned and the girls received a ruler to the back of the legs, as was the norm in all schools at that time. This however was just the physical punishment received by those who had allegedly erred. Psychologically the ripple effect was also at play. What still stays with me today is hearing the sickening pleas and cries from a boy in the classroom next door to mine when in Year 4 or 5. He would cry and plead "Please Sir, please don't hit me" and when I would eventually hear the inevitable thwack from the cane hitting his hands, he'd scream at the top of his voice with every stroke. Inside our classroom, and possibly inside the others along the corridor within earshot of the caning, we would all be absolutely silent and our heads would be bowed down at our books trying not to listen. I remember feeling like I was going to be sick. I can still hear the terrified cries today and remember how it affected me at the time. I can't imagine the effect it must have had on him." 
       Another person who contacted me regarding North Ainslie Primary was 3 years ahead of me. He told me of a bloke who came to the school on several occasions to give students IQ tests, which would have eventually guided the high schools in regard to which classes kids should have been placed in.
   When he mentioned the IQ tester's name I could recall the man, and my memory of him produces in me visions of a bloke I thought at the time was angry, violent and bullying. According to the bloke who contacted me, just before his class was about to sit for one of their final IQ tests the apparent sadistic bully gave a lad a hard slap across the face. If this did occur, with the shock of it all I can only imagine how poorly the boy performed in his test on that day and how his poor performance would have affected how he was placed when he reached high school. 
   When I went on to Dickson High in 1965 the caning culture continued along with other forms of physical and psychological abuse. One particular male teacher at Dickson High who was there in 1965 was an absolute psycho. I won't name him, but any student who was at Dickson High at the time will know exactly who he is. 
   I was in 1st form (Year 7) and aged 12 turning 13 that year, when he walked past our classroom. We were making a noise as our teacher had to step out, so when he saw my mate, Jan Aamodt, and me turned around and talking to the kids behind us he walked over to us and slapped us both across the face. Jan got one hard slap but I got 2 and felt some concussion at the time. I was very frustrated by the fact that I did not have the physical capacity to give him a hiding. I was told however, he received a couple of hidings from older kids at various times during his teaching career. What a piece of shit! I really hope he's dead. 
    A year later I was picked up and thrown by a very powerful teacher, and a year after that he caned Slob Kirby and me. I once received 6 on each hand from another teacher but there was no comparison between the 12 I received on that occasion and the 4 we each received on the occasion I am referring to. I don't know how it didn't break the bones in our hands! We each had bruising and blood blisters running the entire width of our hands from each stroke we received and the pain after the event was intense.
   The male teachers were by no means the only perpetrators of violence and therefore not the only ones who should be vilified for acts of child abuse. Most female teachers were more  than willing to send kids to male teachers knowing full well it would result in the kids being caned, which meant they may as well have been doing it themselves. It's no different than a person paying a hitman to murder someone and then somehow trying to claim he is less immoral than the hitman.  
    I can also remember a female teacher we had ordering the late Bluey Cowan to put a small rubbish bin on his head. He quite rightly refused, so she threatened to send him to the headmaster to be caned. He then told her that if she sent him to the headmaster he would get his father involved. So realising the repercussions of the situation she backed down, but when doing so she called him a weak person for resorting to the use of his father. 
   Even at that age I could see the large flaw in her argument. She was happy to bully him when she thought she had the weight of the Australian government backing her up but she thought Bluey weak for threatening to use his father to challenge the system. What a sack of shit she was!   
    In regard to Catholic schools, there was also obviously abuse, although I never went to one. I have however, debated over the years with some of my mates who went to Daramalan College as to whether the teachers at Dickson High were more brutal and abusive than those who taught at Daramalan. 
   As far at the secular vs religious schools brutality debate goes, from what my mate who bordered at Yanco Agricultural College told me it would seem that the secular schools were far more brutal, at least as far as boarding schools were concerned. Having said that, I do not know anyone my age who went to a Protestant or Catholic boarding school. When my mate and I started the equivalent of Year 7 in 1965, (he went to Yanco and I went to Dickson High) the most senior year was Year 11 (or 5th form). My mate tells me that at Yanco during that period their prefects, who would have been kids who were 16 turning 17, were given the authority to cane kids who they thought were misbehaving after school hours. Apparently they did not hesitate. My mate needs to write something about his experiences at Yanco Agricultural College. I will not say anymore in this post about the place because this site is Canberra and districts centric. If anyone who went to Yanco Ag College during that time thinks I have it wrong let me know and I will publish your comments.
   I was also told by a mate who went to Marist College here in Canberra many years after I had left school that Marist kept a large, thick strap, and many parents signed a note giving permission for it to be used on their kids. The older teachers at Marist also apparently continued to use the cane for some time. 
   I received the following from a mate who attended St Pat's in Braddon in the fifties.
   I started primary school at St Pat's School in Braddon in 1957. A few years later they changed the name to "Our Lady of Mercy" but a more appropriate name could have been "Our Lady of No Mercy." I remember a nun who taught me in second class who was prone to violent outbursts. She must have had training in martial arts as she did not use weapons to discipline children and instead used her hands and fists. She would grasp the child by the hair from behind, reef the head back and simultaneously punch them in the back. I can't remember it happening to me most likely because I was careful to avoid doing anything to warrant such treatment.

   Let's however, go back in time to when Benedict House in Queanbeyan, which is now a cafe, restaurant and craft shop, was running as St Benedict's Convent. If the following information supplied to me by a person who recently visited the place is correct it would seem the abuse at St Benedict's was rife until its closure.

     "Last month I had lunch at the cafe at Benedict House. As I was interested in the story of the old building I asked one of the women working there about its history. She explained the rooms downstairs were once classrooms and the nuns and the female students slept upstairs. She said that many nuns and ex students had visited in recent years and their memories have been written down and a book has been produced. She said there seemed to be too much of an emphasis in the book on the punishments the nuns gave the girls rather than an emphasis made of the positive happenings at that time. Therefore they weren't making the book available for sale to the public." 
  Footnote on the above- If anyone would like to contact me disputing the information I was given regarding the said book about St Benedicts being withdrawn from sale for the reasons stated please do so. 
   The Australian historians who, through self-censorship during the 20th century, decided to distort our history by not telling students about Aboriginal massacres and the abuse of Aboriginal children, are now despised for revisionism by way of ommission. If the previously mentioned book that records memories of Benedict House is not being made available to the public because of a desire to censor history those responsible should also be condemned.
   In regard to further comment about abuse in Catholic Schools, I can recall many years ago being told by a girl several years older than me who had attended Catholic Girls' High in or around 1960, (It is now called Merici College), about a nun allegedly hitting a little puppy which was running around the playground on the head with a heavy stick, causing its death. I worked with a temporary worker about 10 years ago who had attended the school during that period and when I asked her about it she told me she had witnessed the event and that what I had been told was accurate. She also told me she cried her eyes out for the rest of the day and all that night and that it caused her a lot of trauma.
  If anyone would like to dispute the event regarding the puppy occurring please contact me. 
   This post will be an ongoing project with stories of abuse I receive added on as I receive them. If anyone would like to contact me giving details of abuse they have suffered or witnessed in schools in the ACT or surrounding districts during the 20th Century please do so by email by clicking on the contact button above. Your name does not need to be published and the teacher/s responsible for the abuse will not be named. 
Dave Wheeler
UPDATE 12/2/16
I received yesterday the following email. For legal reasons I am not publishing the name of the author of the email or the teacher he is referring to. 

Hi Dave,
I read your piece on corporal punishment and violent Canberra teachers. I wonder if you have any information on a teacher called Mr----------- who was at Campbell Primary school around 1969 and the early 1970's. He was a true sadist and psychopath. He was obsessed with building canes in the craft/woodwork room and loved caning children. He provided his caning service for all the school with such a passion and urgency. He actually whimpered audibly with excitement when he did it.
Aside from caning he could be very violent physically and I was one of many kids that was violently assaulted by him. Today he would be jailed for a fraction of what he did to children.
Regards,
-----------
FOR MANY MORE MAINLY CANBERRA-BASED YARNS HIT THE "HOME" BUTTON UP THE TOP.

DICKSON HIGH KIDS LOST IN THE MOUNTAINS IN 1975

DICKSON HIGH KIDS LOST IN THE 

MOUNTAINS IN 1975

By Louise Lyon

   It was March 1975, a time before personal computers or mobile phones. I was in Sixth Form, or Year 12, at Dickson High School, now called Dickson College and we were all going on a school excursion to Guthega for 5 days.
   Our year filled one large bus and a mini bus which travelled together in convoy. During the entire trip those of us on the large bus enjoyed ridiculing those friends on the mini bus and they ridiculed us in return. Their bus resembled the small buses that were used by Koomarri, which was a place for the mentally and physically challenged at that time. Chants of “Koomarri, Koomarri” continued and served to annoy those on the mini bus. So the trip began, two buses full of young people oozing with excitement and high spirits. On arrival at Guthega we were soon organised into our chalets which were roomy with large central lounge areas and real fires crackling in the hearths. It was late summer, so there was no snow, it was a time to enjoy this new environment and study it.

   Our first work was an organised walking expedition which was meant to take about half the day. The  plan was to travel by buses to Thredbo, then catch the chair lift up to the mountain range behind Thredbo, and go on a half day walk. We had at least 4 teachers with us and we all looked forward to the experience. The day was fine and sunny so wearing wet weather gear we thought was unnecessary.

   Soon after alighting from the chair-lift and walking for half an hour or so, the weather changed dramatically. We seemed to be engulfed by a misty fog, the temperature dropped, the wind came up and it began to drizzle and sleet. We thought the teachers knew the way, so we all confidently followed along behind only to become increasingly wet, cold and miserable. There was no actual path to follow, perhaps if there was the meadow grass had covered it over spring and summer. Due to poor visibility we were glad the teachers brought a compass to follow. One of the students at the front of the group held the compass, none of us realising until too late that his large wristwatch interfered with the magnetic field of the compass, sending us in completely the wrong direction.

The above photo is of us at a stage where we had the feeling we were lost but were not quite sure.

   Our clothes were not waterproof and it didn’t take long for us to realise things were going wrong. We were told to stop at intervals while the teachers seemed to confer with each other in worried whispers with much hand pointing. One teacher walked up onto a rocky outcrop to view our surroundings which proved futile with the fog shrouding us. The wind and sleet were coming at us sideways. Like penguins we clustered for warmth in groups of three and four linking arms to trudge on. A few students were showing worrying signs, one complained of severe cramps and others were slowing and lagging behind. One of the girls had recently recovered from anorexia, and still being under weight, we were very concerned for her as she was really feeling the cold and leaning on her friends for support.

   The teachers called a halt when we noticed we had gone in a complete circle. We followed the teachers down into a natural valley or hollow where the wind wasn’t as strong, then they asked us to gather around closely. The senior teacher announced “We are lost” which was no news to us. He then suggested as it was now almost dusk, that we should try and sleep the night where we were standing, in the slightly sheltered hollow. We had no camping equipment, no food, in fact nothing except the wet clothes we were standing in. None of us moved, while contemplating his words. Another teacher seemed to have a discussion with the head teacher after which he announced we would make one last attempt to find our way. Two students, Peter Tuckerman and Peter Colquhoun and two teachers were to walk in four separate directions but they were not to walk further than their line of sight to us. They were asked to look for landmarks I presume. 

This photo shows us when we were cold and miserable and waiting for the look-outs to find a way of ensuring we did not perish.

   Unbelievably one of the four look-outs came across a lone hiker. The hiker came over to us and spoke to the head teacher instructing us to walk in a certain direction for another mile or so along a narrow track, then we should see a line of snow poles and a blue metal road which we should follow to Seaman’s Hut which would give us shelter.

   By this stage my lower back was cramping from the cold, I couldn’t feel my hands or feet, my ears were burning, icy water dripped from my hair and squelched from my shoes. It was foggy and grey, wet, windy, cold and miserable. We continued slowly on, and finally reached Seaman’s Hut, a two roomed hut made to shelter walkers at times like this.

   I found out later that the hut was built in 1929 with finance from the parents of Laurie Seaman who died in a blizzard in 1928 close to the hut’s location. Laurie’s mate also died in the blizzard. I’m sure the Seaman family took some solace knowing the hut would save the lives of many over the years. The hut is fairly close to the summit of Mt Kosciusko.

   We all stood shoulder to shoulder crowded tightly together in the little stone hut, while one or two suffering early signs of hypothermia were attended to in the other small room and placed in the beds there. One of my best friends kept having to rush outside to vomit, another sure sign of exposure. Soon the warmth from our bodies coupled with our wet clothing caused a new mist to rise all around us in the hut. It was so foggy in there that it was difficult to see the person beside you.

   There was no form of communication in the hut that we could use to call for help and by now it was dark. Two students, Peter Colquhoun and Peter Tuckerman and a teacher volunteered to walk down the road in front of the hut which was then called Summit Road, now it is Summit Walk. They walked perhaps for a few miles, to Charlotte’s Pass to the hotel to alert the authorities and get help. They were our heroes that day as they did exactly that. Rangers in two Landrovers arrived with their headlights beaming and shuttled us back and forth to Guthega, beginning with those most affected by the cold. Two students were admitted to hospital overnight. 
   I remember we were met at our chalet by Mrs Clarke, the home science teacher, who handed each of us on arrival a steaming mug of minestrone soup. That soup is the most delicious soup I have ever tasted to this day. Others I have spoken to since, agree.

   Needless to say due to this experience occurring in the first day or two of the planned excursion week, very little was asked of us for the remainder of the week. In fact we had absolutely no work given to us and we made it clear we were not willing to do any as a group. We partied every night and the boys even stole the male teachers’ beer from their room but remembered to leave a thank you note and money. There were no repercussions.
   I clearly remember waiting in the sun on the last day for the buses to collect us to take us back to Canberra.  Standing near me were all my friends, including Sharon Selley, who was very attractive and curvaceous. As we chatted in groups, one of the teachers began to hold up the lost property. The last item held up was a very small cupped, tiny lacy bra. The teacher held it over his own chest and exclaimed “Who owns this? ... There’s one thing I can say for sure, it sure isn’t Sharon Selley’s!” There was much laughter sealing the end of a never to be forgotten school excursion.
FOR MANY MORE MAINLY CANBERRA-BASED YARNS HIT THE "HOME" BUTTON UP THE TOP.

CANBERRA BOUNCERS, CANBERRA COPPERS AND AN INCIDENT AT THE KINGO ON CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2011

   CANBERRA BOUNCERS, CANBERRA COPPERS AND AN INCIDENT AT THE KINGO ON CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2011
by Dave Wheeler

   

   To begin this yarn/rant I will remind readers that it was not so long ago there were strict physical restrictions, primarily in regard to height and weight, when it came to recruiting members of the Australian Federal Police force. 

   The restrictions were based on the assumption that police had to use their bodies at times to apprehend criminals and perform other physical work, and that those who did not have certain physical attributes may have been unable to perform their tasks as well as those who did. 

   The intent of the restrictions had to a degree a rational basis, even though some of the restrictions they had are not necessary. Even now technology has not been able to fully compensate for the human body/s and handcuffs when it comes to finding a way of controlling violent members of the public without risking the health or the lives of such offenders. 

    To elaborate, physically weak coppers without grappling skills using guns, tasers and chemical sprays may be able to overpower violent persons, but in doing so they are at times not only risking inflicting on the offenders permanent physical damage or death; they are putting themselves at risk of losing their jobs or even being locked up should a court decide they have gone overboard in the use of such weaponry or its use was not necessary.

   Maybe one day scientists will come up with a gadget which will render violent people harmless without their long term health or lives being put at risk, but I would not hold my breath waiting for it. Such technology is a long, long way off, and there is a good chance there will be a genuine cure for baldness and cancer by the time it arrives. 

   Until that time as a taxpayer I am conscious of the fact that I would get better value for my money if police management hired more coppers with physical and psychological abilities (or very good grappling skills. They don't have to be enormous.) which ensured they rarely needed weapons to subdue violent but unarmed members of the public. Surely two or more non-snag and reasonably strong coppers with handcuffs and some relevant training should be sufficient in most cases?

    Having said what I have said about dropped physical standards when it comes to recruitment of police, I readily admit that some of the former physical restrictions were not at all rationally-based. I know of many highly successful physically powerful mixed martial artists/grapplers who would have been ruled out as being too short or light to have made any Australian police force in earlier times, but would nonetheless be a real asset in any police force when it comes to subduing violent persons. And does it really matter if someone does not have perfect vision? The ex world bantamweight boxing champion, Johnny Famechon, had pronounced short-sightedness at the time he won his world crown, and for that reason he would have been rejected at the time had he applied to be a copper anywhere in Australia. 
    Unfortunately politicians and high-ranking coppers threw the baby out with the bathwater by overreacting when it came to easing physical standards for police recruits. Many of the coppers I see nowadays are appalling physical specimens who could not knock shit of a shovel. When I drove past one recently who was booking a motorist I thought it was a bull-lesbian trying to look masculine, but on closer examination I could (just) make out it was a bloke, of a sort.

   Don't get me wrong; I am not saying all AFP members are physically weak and cowardly, as there are a significant number of AFP members who are very tough, both physically and psychologically. I am saying there should be no piss-weak coppers working within the AFP irrespective of size unless their tasks are purely clerical, but that is plainly not the case. 

   If you click on the appropriate box above and download "Tales of a Canberra Boy" you will be able to read some of the adventures of the legendary Jack Dealy, an ex Canberra copper and wrestler. He was of the opinion that if he had to use weapons against someone who was not armed he should not have been a copper. 
   If I make it to my nineties and become crippled with arthritis, should I be knocked off my mobility scooter and sexually assaulted by seven Albanian tourists wearing Bermuda shorts and socks I don't want some piss-weak snag of a copper with a university degree and no martial skills coming to my aid. I would rather see my taxes spent hiring tough knockabout coppers, even if they only have basic literacy, common sense, a good sense of empathy and good self-control.

   I don't want to see my argument misconstrued. When I was a teenager in the sixties it was not uncommon for coppers to get away with bashing people, and I am in no way wanting a return to that situation or in our having more of a police  state. I find the powers police currently have under anti-terrorist legislation an obscenity. 
 

  I am saying we want the best sorts of coppers possible for the job, and that does not necessarily mean discriminating in favour of prospective recruits with university degrees at the expense of more suitable people who do not have university degrees. 

   Unfortunately since the physical standards were virtually removed many coppers they hire nowadays do not even have the psychological capacity to deal with violent unarmed people without resorting to the use of weapons. I am not making a meaningless statement; there are many instances on the public record in Canberra and elsewhere of scared coppers panicking, and as a result using sprays, guns or tasers on violent persons who could have been overpowered by the use of the human body and handcuffs had the right sorts of coppers been present at the time.  

    This brings me to the matter of how bouncers and private security companies are being relied on a great deal more nowadays than they previously were because governments are too tight and stupid to recruit more coppers of the right sort. Also, politicians have been sucked into the privatisation ideology which has been extended to the keeping of law and order, which brings me onto the question of how bouncers and coppers interact.

  I have been told many stories by bouncers, particularly those who work in the Civic area, of the ineptitude of many physically and psychologically weak AFP members when it comes to dealing with violent patrons. Many they say metaphorically (or literally) shit themselves when confronted with physical violence. They cannot deal with it on either a physical or a psychological level. They are reluctant to use their weapons for obvious reasons and are more than happy to let bouncers deal with violent patrons inside and out the front of nightclubs.

    

   I was told recently by two persons of a brawl they said they witnessed at the Kingston Hotel on Christmas Eve of 20011 which involved certain alleged actions by an Australian Federal Police member. I believe what they told me was true because I know the witnesses well and consider them highly credible people. The incident was also corroborated on hearsay by a young copper I know who was aware of the incident but not present at the time. 

    What in a nutshell allegedly occurred was that after a brawl had been well-contained by bouncers an AFP member panicked and unnecessarily sprayed a chemical in the direction of the brawlers, and the bouncers who had just contained them. As a result those who were brawling, some bouncers, another copper, some innocent patrons and the copper who did the spraying all inhaled the mist that was formed by the spray. All parties fell down like sacks of shit, coughing their lungs out. 
   If there are any coppers or other persons who witnessed the event I just described on that night and dispute what I am saying allegedly occurred, or would like to corroborate it, please feel free to contact me by hitting the contact button above and I will make appropriate additions to this yarn.

   In regard to more specific complaints I have heard from many bouncers, they say that although the Australian Federal Police rely on them to a very large degree and are often not able to adequately back them up because of the coppers being insufficient in number and too physically weak and snagish, some coppers are very eager to have bouncers charged with assault when complaints arise which allege that the bouncers used excessive force on patrons. 
   I am not saying bouncers should not be charged when it is warranted, but from what I have been told some coppers try to have them charged even in situations where the bouncers are being attacked and have no choice but to use attack as a form of self-defence. 
  I reiterate, I do not want my message to be misconstrued. I am not saying there are no thuggish bouncers around who should be free to lay into people without fear of being charged by the police; I am saying that very few people know what it is like to be a bouncer, particularly when they have to deal with violent subhumans who are affected by alcohol and/or amphetamines, and at times bouncers have no choice other than to be physically violent in order to defend themselves and/or others. 
   

   History over the last 10 years clearly tells us that throughout Australia a relatively large number of bouncers have been bashed senseless by violent patrons and some have been killed.
   If coppers think they have it tough when facing violent people they should spare a thought for bouncers who have no weapons, no authority and run a far greater risk of being prosecuted when they take steps to defend themselves in ways which an ignorant and naive magistrate would not be capable of realising were entirely reasonable and appropriate.
   I did not have a high opinion of bouncers when I was a teenager because I had my share of confrontations with them, and many I came across were cowardly thugs who would pick on the timid and physically weak. Such people should have been rounded up and euthanised. It is however, easy to form an opinion of a group as a whole by how a minority behave, and I now know that many bouncers in those days were just ordinary blokes trying to earn a few dollars, as most are today. I can now relate to the plight of bouncers because I also bounced when I was a younger bloke in need of money.
   Other than the companionship and a few other aspects of the job, I did not enjoy bouncing, as I did not like being forced to defend myself against violent patrons who usually had no training in the fighting arts and were also usually handicapped by alcohol and/or other drugs. And like today's bouncers I did not like having the possibility of being charged with assault hanging over me even if I had used what I considered entirely reasonable force to defend myself. 
   I must admit however, I always enjoyed the action and the teamwork when it came to breaking up fights between patrons. It meant breaking the monotony of the shift by getting some physical exercise, but above all it was the antithesis of gaining a sadistic thrill by way of executing a violent and destructive act on a fellow human. I am saying that putting a hold on a violent patron and marching him out the door without delivering to him any physical damage can be described as a justifiable and positive form of very mild violence to the extent that it actually prevents the possibility of the patron injuring himself and/or others within the club.
   I also worked as a security guard for a private company guarding public buildings for 2 years about 30 years ago. The government had decided to get rid of the govie guards partly for ideological reasons but I believe the main reason was because certain political palms were greased. This however, led to my employment, and I was one of the first private security guards on the job. Privatising the guards was a really dumb idea as it has resulted in public buildings today being less safe than they should be. I talk about my experiences as a private security guard in "Tales of a Canberra Boy."
     We still have private security guards inspecting passengers at our aerodromes. They are paid a pittance and have no job security, so what motivation do they have for doing a good job? After the Twin Towers fell the USA began using government employees for the latter job as they did not want a repetition of what had occurred. Not so Australia. Both the Coalition and Labor are too stupid and ideologically-driven to take such steps.  I can recall hearing words attributed to a private security guard who was the first to arrive at the scene when the 2009 bikie brawl at the Sydney Aerodrome occurred. That brawl resulted in a fatality. When asked why he did not intervene he was apparently reported as saying something like, “Why should I? I'm on $16.00 an hour, I have no weapons and no authority."
   It is because bouncers have no real authority and no weapons or handcuffs their negotiating skills are tested to the limit; more so than any other line of work.
    To bounce well a bouncer must be courteous without appearing to be weak or appearing to deliberately intimidate. Above all it is essential that a bouncer lets potential troublemakers not lose face. The name of the game is prevention and the last thing a sensible bouncer wants is a physical confrontation with a patron/s.  
   Being able to do what I have stated in the previous paragraph as well as let patrons know in a very subtle way that they would be in trouble if they attempted to be physically violent is an extremely difficult balancing act. Bouncers with such skills are thin on the ground and they deserve top money. They do however exist in the Berra, but unfortunately many become ex-bouncers because they become disillusioned with how they are treated by the law. 
   

  It does not take them too long to work out that it is not in their best interest to stay in a job where one does a balancing act between attempting to prevent oneself, one's workmates and patrons from being seriously injured or worse by the violent and preventing oneself from being charged by the police for assault. And as the law is interpreted nowadays this is at times impossible! I am also led to believe that the DPP has become more politicised than ever in regard to its targets.  
   Here is where I come to the next problem faced by bouncers and to a lesser extent cops, and that is the law as it is written and how it is interpreted by naive magistrates. Why it is difficult is because the law allows one to use reasonable force to defend oneself, and what constitutes reasonable force is often decided by magistrates who have never been confronted with physical violence, know nothing about the implications of being threatened with physical violence and in particular know nothing about the physics involved in self-defence. They often do not realise that at times it is entirely reasonable for a person to perform a pre-emptive strike as a form of self-defence, particularly when one has a real threat from multiple opponents.
    I do not have  a high opinion of most magistrates. Obviously I can’t condemn all of them, but I do believe the great majority of them are very low quality, power hungry sacks of shit. Many are so conservative they could only be labelled as simple, and I base my judgement on having listened to them in court on many occasions over my lifetime. Can you imagine them contemplating such philosophical questions as whether we have contra-causal free will? Do they still wear those childish wigs? Many have never really grown up.
   The great majority of magistrates throughout Australia have led very sheltered upper middle class lives despite being exposed to the effects of the worse forms of human behaviour. It is one thing seeing the results of violence but another thing actually being directly confronted with it as it occurs. Other than being well-versed in law, magistrates should be taught some good rationalist philosophy, evolutionary psychology and neuroscience and be given a basic understanding of the physics of self-defence. After that they should be made to live in the real world before they are allowed on the bench. Many magistrates have done nothing in their lives other than go to uni then practise law.
   They should also have much of their power within the court removed. The arses expect people to stand up for them and bow when they come in and out of the court and address them in ways that are very servile and un-Australian. Most have appalling manners, and the Ombudsman is not allowed to act on complaints about their behaviour. Other public servants would be sacked if they spoke to members of the public in the same way many magistrates talk to people. Most humans abuse power in a manner that is proportional to the amount of power they possess. Magistrates are no exception. 
    While I'm at it, from what I've seen of ACT public prosecutors during my life many of their decisions in regard to who they prosecute appear to have been blatantly political and are also based on how much opposition is threatened. They seem to go for easy prey who are devoid of enough capital to adequately defend themselves. This allows the DPP to get his statistics up while leaving alone big fish with deep pockets who can afford QC's. And it is big fish and large corporations who usually do the most damage to their fellow humans.   
  In summing up, the purpose of this yarn/rant is to encourage the ACT Government to pay for more coppers, to hire the right sorts of coppers and to be a bit more sympathetic to the plight of bouncers, as very few people have been able to see things from their perspective. It may involve enacting new legislation. 
   Unfortunately the death of the cricketer, David Hookes, made bouncers the kicking boys for the herd; more so than they already were. This occurred even though it was found that the bouncer who caused Hooke's death did so in self-defence and was quite rightly acquitted. 
     He was first however, condemned by the gutter media and the public without them knowing anything about the circumstances that led to the cricketer's death, and I believe this was because of the bouncer's size, occupation and Slavic surname. To this day bouncers as a group continue to be vilified by the media and the public for similar reasons.  
   My advice to bouncers and possibly their employers is to organise yourselves as a group. That is the only way you will prevent yourselves continuing to be the meat in the sandwich when it comes to doing your job, because nothing will be done unless you speak and/or act as a group.There has been talk about Canberra bouncers conducting a strike for years. If they did the AFP and the ACT government would be in Shit street, particularly in Civic.
 

   Obviously AFP members have their own problems to contend with and my advice to them is to support their union and to stand up for themselves. They should learn by what happened to their weak and compliant predecessors who were thanked for their hard work and subservience by being placed on contracts.
    When I did a union delegates course several years ago the AFP were used as an example of how management shit on the weak. AFP coppers lost their permanency and were placed on contracts sometime in the 80's (from memory) and in the words of our lecturer at the time,"They lay down and took it up the arse!" 
    I reiterate, I am not saying all of today's AFP coppers are as gutless as the uniformed coppers who did not support industrial action when they were placed on contracts; nor am I saying all AFP coppers are piss weak snags who rely on bouncers. I realise there are some very tough boys amongst them and I know one in particular who is overused for his physical and mental toughness. Yet he gets paid no more than his weaker workmates., which does not please him and is grossly unfair. 
    After writing this yarn I have been told a private security company is actually contracted to patrol parts of Civic. It apparently has nothing to do with nightclubs and is paid by the ACT Government. They would obviously have no more authority than any other non-coppers, nor should they. 
    If this is true all I can say is, "What sort of idiots do we have running this place?" Talk about the ACT government abrogating its responsibilities! Again, if this is true AFP union members should feel like crawling under a rock in shame for allowing the ACT Government to get away with it. Do they have any pride, self-respect or sense of solidarity?
Dave Wheeler

  For more Canberra-based yarns hit the Home button up the top.