as long as no one can kick me out
In the 21st century, I can’t imagine anyone gets this guarantee without a stupid amount of wealth. And even then, high wealth levels (and its maintenance) requires far more people than it seems you’re comfortable with.
No matter where you live, even if you own the property outright, pressure to “develop” can unexpectedly come knocking.
and it’s far away from people
I feel this, keenly. I truly hope you find what you need.
It takes continual effort to offset the Coriolis effect down under.
if they made their homes more energy efficient
Assertion misses the point: Most Australians whose homes need to be made more energy efficient, are renting and have no agency in doing anything like that to their homes.
Telling those people "you could save on your power bill by modifications to your home”, is just cruel. We know our homes are energy inefficient, we can’t make the changes required.
What’s needed is legislation that mandates the landlord must pay for those improvements, before they take any more money from the renter.
It dates back at least to the 1980s, during the Hawke era.
A Labor party that cast unemployed workers as “bludgers”. A Labor party that concocted a Neoliberal Accord with the ACTU to suppress the rights of workers, as a means to keep wages (and worker power to negotiate better conditions) down. A Labor party that devastated social support by making unemployment benefits far more difficult to obtain.
All this was an “unleashing” of the private sector the effects of which still rage around us today.
https://jacobin.com/2020/10/australia-labor-party-neoliberalism-accord
The government being the biggest job creator is not a good sign for the economy at large
How do you come to that judgement?
What do you count as “the economy at large”? How have you determined that this observation (the government being the biggest job creator) is a good sign for that, a bad sign for that, or no signal for that?
What connection does your definition of “the economy at large” have to do with life as lived by most people in that economy? If the connection is indirect, how do we determine whether “good for the economy at large” is good for the people in that economy?
I ask all this because it seems to me “the government being the biggest job creator” can be good or not good. It very much depends on how good the jobs created are: wages compared to cost of living, working conditions, stability of employment, and the social benefit of the work being done, among other factors.
If the government creates a bunch of jobs that society needs, and they’re good jobs, and all other factors that affect us are good, why should we care whether it’s “not a good sign for the economy at large”? The economy has been doing great during some really shitty times in society. I don’t think we should much care what is good for “the economy at large” unless it’s directly connected to working people’s lives.
No. That is one question they ask. It is not how they define intimate partner violence.
The definition they use is right there in the report:
What is intimate partner violence? In this research, we adopt the definition of intimate partner violence set out in the National Plan as:
Any behaviour within an intimate relationship (including current or past marriages, domestic partnerships or dates) that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm … Intimate partner violence can occur outside of a domestic setting, such as in public, and between 2 people that do not live together. (DSS, 2022, p 37)
So if the behaviour does not (my emphasis) “cause physical, sexual or psychological harm”, it does not match their definition of intimate partner violence.
Here is a Wayback Machine URL for the same post: https://web.archive.org/web/20250912020115/https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-death-fascism-america-united-states-donald-trump-australia-don-farrell/ in case you want to update the post to use that URL.