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.

There is a stereotype in the rest of the world that, in Australia, everything there is out to kill you.

This is just flat wrong. Pretty much every wild animal in Australia will do its best to avoid confrontation with humans.

It isn’t even true that the most deadly animals in the world are in Australia. As you might expect, that goes to animals which sometimes seek and attack other animals like humans: wolves, hippopotamus, bear, mosquito, etc. Nothing special about Australia there.

It’s probably a mis-understanding of the truth: That Australia is home to animals with the most deadly venom in the world. Arachnids and reptiles, sea creatures, etc. with highly toxic venom.

This is a very different statement. Most of those animals with deadly venom, are not “out to kill you”. They are deadly but don’t tend to seek humans; they have deadly defenses that they will employ if they feel trapped or ambushed.

Some of these animals do seek shelter, which in remote areas often brings them into human habitation. In rural areas you do need to check you’re not going to surprise a bitey animal when going to the toilet or other nice sheltered spaces.

So, no the Australian wildlife is not “out to kill you”; quite the contrary, if you move carefully it will do its best to steer clear of you, it has no interest in getting near you and your big mammalian ways.

A good local baker, especially one that will make a decent sourdough, is a must wherever we live.

My circle of people doesn’t include many who can afford an overseas vacation, no matter the destination.

I’d say it would not be “as common” as USAians visiting Canada, simply because we can’t drive from Australia to New Zealand.

But yeah, my guess is that New Zealand is frequently near the top of the list of desired vacation destination, for Australians.

So their announcement seems to be saying they’ll follow what the national government officially calls the feature:

In an X post on Monday, Google said its Maps service would reflect the change once it is officially updated in the US Geographic Names System. The change will be visible to Google Maps users in the US, but it will remain listed as Gulf of Mexico for those accessing the platform from Mexico. Outside of the two countries, users will see both names.

And, yeah. What is the alternative policy from Google that we’re proposing? That Google should be sovereign in itself, declare they’ll name it whatever seems right to Google, and not defer to the government appointed names for things? Based on what, exactly?

I want Google subject to official government policy, and not to ignore it. I want Google Maps to follow the official name when, for example, Ayer’s Rock is now officially called Uluru.

This specific government policy (that the Gulf of Mexico be changed to the “Gulf of America”) is stupid and jingoistic. But is the answer to that, we want corporations empowered to ignore government policy?

If the government of the day orders that Uluru is now called Aussie Stone, and Google announces they’ll update maps to follow the change of official name? My objection is not that Google follows the official name; it’s that the government of the day is wrong and needs to be ousted.