Ruby’s Mount Kembla Restaurant

I found something about the RUBY RESTAURANT here:

http://www.rubysmtkembla.com.au/dining.html

“Ruby’s Mount Kembla is run and owned by Scott Woods.

Having completed his first three years of his apprenticeship at Ruby’s, then fourth year at Aria under Matt Moran. Scott then went on to work under Tom Aikins at Tom Aikins London and Melissa Craig at the Bearfoot Bistro in Whistler, Canada.”

History (according to Google):

http://www.rubysmtkembla.com.au/history.html

“Nestled in the historic mining village of Kembla Heights, Ruby’s Mount Kembla first traded as the village store and Post Office to a thriving community of coal miners and their families in the late 1800’s.

Named after Ruby Moore – a famous local resident and Post Mistress during the 1920’s and 1930’s, the store has undergone much careful restoration and is now home to one of the most well loved restaurants in the Illawarra.”

Lateline Program about Asylum Seekers, Mother Theresa, Interview with Paul Collins

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/lateline/NC1625H156S00

I just watched the above program.

Here is a reference to an article in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, written by Michael Koziol:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/dont-use-refugees-as-human-shield-against-people-smuggling-warns-paris-aristotle-20160905-gr9h15.html

SEPTEMBER 6 2016 – 1:23AM

Don’t use refugees as ‘human shield against people smuggling’, warns Paris Aristotle

My thoughts on this:

I think it is really time the public thought about the consequences of our politicians policies regarding our off shore detention centres.

A sustainable urbanised World?

https://theconversation.com/habitat-iii-the-biggest-conference-youve-probably-never-heard-of-63499?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%205%202016%20-%205547&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%205%202016%20-%205547+CID_3ff983a54929ca2b3404d8bc530ad836&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Habitat%20III%20the%20biggest%20conference%20youve%20probably%20never%20heard%20of

The Conversation says:

“Habitat III: the biggest conference you’ve probably never heard of”

I ask myself why on earth have we not heard of this big conference?

The last paragraph in The Conversations’ write-up is as follows:

“Fulfilling our UN member state role in Habitat III is an opportunity not to be missed. Through Quito, we can reinvigorate our national urban policy, build our regional profile and leverage and export our urban expertise. But, more importantly, by taking our seat at the table we will be playing our part in the transition of humanity into a sustainable, urbanised world.”

So,

What is Habitat III?

“Habitat III” is shorthand for a major global summit, formally known as the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, to be held in Quito, Ecuador, on 17-20 October 2016.

http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/explainer/what-habitat-iii

How the entire nation of Nauru almost moved to Queensland

August 15, 2016 6.16am AEST

Nauru’s parliament would have been rebuilt in Queensland, but with less power. CdaMVvWgS/Wikimedia Commons

Author

Jane McAdam
Scientia Professor and Director of the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Australia

Disclosure statement

Jane McAdam receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Research Council of Norway. She is engaged in several international policy processes aimed at developing strategies to address human mobility in the context of climate change and disasters.

Partners

UNSW Australia provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

The Conversation’s partners

View partners of The Conversation

Republish this article

We believe in the free flow of information. We use a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivatives licence, so you can republish our articles for free, online or in print.

Republish

Nauru is best known to most Australians as the remote Pacific island where asylum seekers who arrive by boat are sent. What is less well known is that in the 1960s, the Australian government planned to relocate the entire population of Nauru to an island off the Queensland coast.

The irony of this is striking, especially in light of continuing revelations that highlight the non-suitability of Nauru as a host country for refugees. It also provides a cautionary tale for those considering wholesale population relocation as a “solution” for Pacific island communities threatened by the impacts of climate change.

Extensive phosphate mining on Nauru by Australia, Britain and New Zealand during the 20th century devastated much of the country. The landscape was so damaged that scientists considered it would be uninhabitable by the mid-1990s. With the exorbitant cost of rehabilitating the island, relocation was considered the only option.

In 1962, Australia’s prime minister Robert Menzies acknowledged that the three nations had a “clear obligation … to provide a satisfactory future for the Nauruans”, given the large commercial and agricultural benefits they had derived from Nauru’s phosphate. This meant “either finding an island for the Nauruans or receiving them into one of the three countries, or all of the three countries”.

That same year, Australia appointed a Director of Nauruan Resettlement to comb the South Pacific looking for “spare islands offering a fair prospect”. Possible relocation sites in and around Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Australia’s Northern Territory were explored, but were ultimately deemed inappropriate. There weren’t enough job opportunities and there were tensions with the locals.

Fraser Island in Queensland was also considered, but the Australian government decided it didn’t offer sufficiently strong economic prospects to support the population. The Nauruans thought this was a convenient excuse (and archival materials show that the timber industry was fiercely opposed).

The Curtis solution

In 1963, Curtis Island near Gladstone was offered as an alternative. Land there was privately held, but the Australian government planned to acquire it and grant the Nauruans the freehold title. Pastoral, agricultural, fishing and commercial activities were to be established, and all the costs of resettlement, including housing and infrastructure, were to be met by the partner governments at an estimated cost of 10 million pounds – around A$274 million in today’s terms.

But the Nauruans refused to go. They did not want to be assimilated into White Australia and lose their distinctive identity as a people. Many also saw resettlement as a quick-fix solution by the governments that had devastated their homeland, and a cheap option compared with full rehabilitation of the island.

Australia also refused to relinquish sovereignty over Curtis Island. While the Nauruans could become Australian citizens, and would have the right to “manage their own local administration” through a council “with wide powers of local government”, the island would officially remain part of Australia.

Frustrated by what it perceived as a genuine and generous attempt to meet the wishes of the Nauruan people, the Menzies government insisted it wouldn’t change its mind.

So the Nauruans stayed put.

Nauru’s phosphate industry has left the landscape scarred and useless for agriculture. CdaMVvWgS/Wikimedia Commons

The issue briefly resurfaced in 2003 when Australia’s foreign minister Alexander Downer once again suggested wholesale relocation as a possible strategy, given that Nauru was “bankrupt and widely regarded as having no viable future”. Nauru’s president dismissed the proposal, reiterating that relocating the population to Australia would undermine the country’s identity and culture.

Planned relocations in the Pacific

Today, “planned relocation” is touted as a possible solution for low-lying Pacific island countries, such as Kiribati and Tuvalu, which are threatened by sea-level rise and other long-term climate impacts.

But past experiences in the Pacific, such as the relocation of the Banabans in 1945 from present-day Kiribati to Fiji, show the potentially deep, intergenerational psychological consequences of planned relocation. This is why most Pacific islanders see it as an option of last resort. Unless relocation plans result from a respectful, considered and consultative process, in which different options and views are seriously considered, they will always be highly fraught.

Nauru today is at the highest level of vulnerability on the Environmental Vulnerability Index. The past destruction wrought by phosphate mining has rendered the island incapable of supporting any local agriculture or industry, with 90% of the land covered by limestone pinnacles.

It has a very high unemployment rate, scarce labour opportunities, and virtually no private sector – hence why the millions of dollars on offer to operate Australia’s offshore processing centres was so attractive. These factors also illustrate why the permanent resettlement of refugees on Nauru is unrealistic and unsustainable.

Nauru’s future seems sadly rooted in an unhealthy relationship of co-dependency with Australia, as its territory is once again exploited, at the expense of the vulnerable. And as the story of Curtis Island shows, there are no simple solutions, whether well-intentioned or not.

This is an overview of a longer article published in Australian Geographer.

Australian Federal Election, July 2016

Here is a copy of an article by the AIM Network on the above subject. I was especially interested in finding out a bit more about the senators who have been elected or are predicted to get into the senate. Towards the end of the article it says that Senator Xenophon does not like offshore processing of refugees.

http://theaimn.com/road-to-nowhere/

On a Road to Nowhere?
July 4, 2016 Written by: The Weasel 17 Replies
Category: News and Politics
permalink
Tagged under:

2013 Federal Election, ABC, AEC, ALP, asylum seekers, Australian election, Australian Labor Party, Bill Shorten, Climate change, Constitutional Recognition, Double dissolution, Education, Federal ICAC, Gonsky, Greens, Hanson, House of Representatives, Katter, Liberal, LNP, Malcolm Turnbull, marriage equality, Mcgowan, Medicare, National, NBN, News and Politics, One Nation, Parliament, rageVote, Refugees, Renewable energy, Royal commission into Banking, Senate, stabilityMal, Treaty, Wilkie, xenophon

The Weasel
weasel-theResults-
As we all wake up today from our election hangovers, and stagger bleary eyed to work, many are considering the real implication of living in interesting times… and the real possibility that the Governor General may be forced to call a second election. The double dissolution election brought on by #stabilityMal has surprised everyone, not least the Australian voter; who, after casting their #rageVote now wonders what they were drinking, and who it was they spent those huddled, sweaty moments with in that election booth. Therefore, in another empty attempt to make sense of it all, it’s time for more analysis and conjecture!

Battle of the Bastards
The current count on the AEC website has the ALP leading in 69 seats, and the LNP with 64. The ALP is trending in a further three seats, and the LNP in two, though all five are too close to call… which should probably be the subtitle for this election. The AEC has six seats undetermined, though this includes Cowper where the nationals have suffered a 9.5 swing against, but will likely defeat Rob Oakeshott to retain the seat.

**updated 1800hrs 4 July** The ABC (i.e. Antony Green) has a slightly different tally, with ALP at 67, LNP at 68 **up from 64**. Out of the 10 ‘seats in doubt’ the LNP is ahead on slender margins in four seats, the ALP on a similar knife-edge in five, and Xenophon party fairly comfortable in one. Giving us a House looking like this:
TABLES-house

One of the key factors in this election is that traditional conservative voters have felt betrayed by the Liberal and National parties. Mining, CSG, the NBN, foreign ownership, constant cuts and privatisation have been a catalyst for conservative voters to look at what else is on offer. Some have realised that the ALP has policies they support; others have turned even further right. As a result, immigration is likely to be a continuing flashpoint, though this time around even Pauline Hanson supports socialised healthcare and the NBN.

Greens and Andrew Wilkie have a record of voting with the ALP, though Wilkie has stated he will not enter into any deals. Cathy McGowan tends to vote with the Coalition. Previously Katter aligned with the LNP, though this time there’s no carbon tax on the table this time. Key issues for Katter are CSG, energy privatisation and land sales, all of which the ALP have made murmurs about, while the LNP are unwilling/unable to move on either. If that will shift the pragmatic Katter away from traditional alliances remains to be seen. Xenophon has already said he will take the number of seats either party wins into account when negotiating agreements, so if that second seat in Grey comes to Team X then he will truly be the kingmaker.

Stiff Upper Lip
The new senate is going to be a mixed bag. Media and politicians alike may decry the election results as a circus as much as they like; but the people have spoken, just not coherently.

There are two truths in democracy: The voter is always right… and you get the government you deserve… and based on ABC.net.au and the AEC website, the senate is currently looking like this:

TABLES-senate

The trend for seats in doubt generally toward the right wing parties such as Katter, Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers, One Nation, and the various Christian groups. As per predictions, the lions’ share will likely go to the major parties; though there is a chance that either Katter or One Nation will get across the line.

Given the wide range of voices represented in the senate, we need to ask the question: Where do the new senators stand on legislation?

The Sydney Morning Herald published this rough breakdown of each parties’ focus. The Weasel takes a next step and looks at how the senators will likely vote on current key issues.

Positions garnered from official policy statements, news reports, and interest group websites.
Where there is no clear position, it can be assumed that senators will use the issue as a bargaining chip to further their own agenda.

Marriage Equality
Derryn Hinch: Pro equality, parliamentary vote
Fred Nile: Anti equality, pro plebiscite
Jacqui Lambie: Anti equality, pro plebiscite, conscience vote for party.
Katter: Anti equality
Lib Democrats: Pro equality, parliamentary vote
One Nation: Anti equality, pro plebiscite
Xenophon: Pro equality, parliamentary vote
see also Aus Marriage Equality site

Climate Change / Renewable Energy
Derryn Hinch: No clear position
Fred Nile: Sceptic, pro nuclear
Jacqui Lambie: Supports action (in statements), pro nuclear, voting record unclear
Katter: Pro Action, stop CSG, extend emission target, boost ethanol production
Lib Democrats: Sceptics, support mitigation, pro nuclear
One Nation: Wants a Royal commission into climate science “corruption”
Xenophon: Pro Action, 50% reduction target by 2030

Recognition or Treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
Derryn Hinch: No clear position
Fred Nile: Opposes Constitutional recognition, supports increased engagement
Jacqui Lambie: Constitutional recognition, plus dedicated indigenous seats in parliament
Katter: Wants action, possibly prefers treaty
Lib Democrats: Opposes Constitutional recognition
One Nation: Opposes Constitutional recognition and treaty
Xenophon: Supports Constitutional recognition

Education
Derryn Hinch: No clear position
Fred Nile: Improve education by adding bible study, and cutting Safe Schools
Jacqui Lambie: Boost TAFE, introduce national-service style apprenticeship scheme
Katter: Pro funding boosts, also wants systematic education reform
Lib Democrats: Stop Federal funding, pro deregulation, cut Austudy
One Nation: Government subsidised apprenticeship scheme
Xenophon: Pro Gonski, anti university deregulation

Royal Commission into Banking
Derryn Hinch: No clear position, may support
Fred Nile: No clear position
Jacqui Lambie: Supports
Katter: Supports
Lib Democrats: No clear position, unlikely to support
One Nation: No clear position, may support
Xenophon: Supports

NBN
Derryn Hinch: No clear position
Fred Nile: No clear position, wants more infrastructure
Jacqui Lambie: Supports FTTP
Katter: Supports FTTP
Lib Democrats: Prefers private competitive roll out instead of government
One Nation: Wants high speed broadband, proposes wireless hubs for regions
Xenophon: Supports FTTP

Federal ICAC
Derryn Hinch: Probably Pro ICAC
Fred Nile: No clear position
Jacqui Lambie: Pro ICAC
Katter: No clear position
Lib Democrats: No clear position
One Nation: Probably Pro ICAC
Xenophon: Pro ICAC

Refugees
Derryn Hinch: No clear position
Fred Nile: Mandatory detention, prefers Christian refugees,
Jacqui Lambie: Wants children out of detention, strict monitoring & quotas
Katter: Turnbacks, faster assessment, and supply work while on TPVs
Lib Democrats: Mandatory detention, on/off shore processing, strict entry requirements
One Nation: Turnbacks
Xenophon: Dislikes offshore processing, increase intake, speed up processing

Healthcare
Derryn Hinch: No clear position
Fred Nile: Better spending, especially in aged care
Jacqui Lambie: Supports socialised medicine, especially for combat veterans
Katter: Supports socialised medicine, wants more services for regions
Lib Democrats: Abolish Medicare, privatise, The Market will provide… apparently
One Nation: Supports socialised medicine
Xenophon: Supports socialised medicine, focus on prevention

On the question of which senators get a six-year stint, and which three… well that is up to the senate. There are two options:
1. Order-of-election; Out of the 12 state senators, whoever crossed the line first gets six years.
2. Recount; Votes are recounted treating the vote as a normal three-year cycle. Whoever would have been elected on that basis gets six years.
Which one the senate uses will likely depend on the three major parties, with Xenophon once again in position as king-maker. The inestimable Antony Green, of course, covers this question in more detail.

The anti-Islam voting block of Fred Nile, One Nation, and Lambie will bring up issues surrounding Muslim Australians and immigration generally; and likely to include senate inquiries into banning burkas or halal certification and labelling. The LNP could use this flashpoint as a major negotiating chip to pass other legislation; though that is unlikely to be the ABCC bill.

On practical and ideological matters of investing in education, healthcare, and infrastructure such as the NBN, the balance is definitely leaning toward the ALP. Lambie, Katter and Xenophon have shifted to the centre on these issues, and the LNP can no longer rely on social policies to wedge support for their neo-liberal economic programme. Accepting a Federal ICAC may present the ALP with a ticket to govern, but marriage equality is unlikely to get anywhere unless the ALP can push an open vote. Action on climate will be problematic, expect another senate inquiry into nuclear power.

As predicted Derryn Hinch picked up the PUP and Ricky Muir vote, though really has very little to offer beyond his pet name-and-shame project, and animal justice. Populist by nature, he could decide or shift his vote if a concerted push came from his electorate…

…and that is important to remember. You can write to your MP and your Senator to express your preference. This parliament is an opportunity for voters and community to have a real impact on the nature of the parliament, and what agenda the parliament pursues. Given that the independent parties may decide who gets to form government, the time to start writing is now.

HOW DID WORLD WAR TWO AFFECT US?

http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2016-04/kriegsenkel-2-weltkrieg-

http://www.zeit.de/index

Peter and I, we both looked yesterday at two articles in ZEIT ONLINE. These articles are written in German by

Matthias Lohre

There are two pages with the following titles:

Seite 1 — Das zähe Seelenerbe des Zweiten Weltkrieges
Seite 2 — Eine Kindheit auf Zehenspitzen

Reading these articles prompted us to think once more about how WW2 affected us. We both came to the conclusion that we did not experience anything that would have caused us some trauma. Both our fathers survived the war, but we agreed that both our fathers most likely would have gone through traumatic experiences during the war. Both our parents’ marriages ended up in separation and divorce after the war.

Peter has written a number of blogs about his experiences during and after the war. On the 16th May 1945, soon after the end of the war in Germany, Peter turned ten. Now, more than 70 years later, Peter still remembers amazingly much about 1944 and 1945, and as I said, he has written about it. You may find some of his blogs here:

https://berlioz1935.wordpress.com/page/2/?s=World+War+Two&submit=Search

Following is a link to the blogs that I wrote about my childhood during World War Two and after:

https://auntyuta.com/?s=World+War+Two&submit=Search

Matthias Lohre writes about how badly millions of people had been affected by the War. Yes, millions and millions of people. And a lot of readers wrote comments on this subject. I read only a few of the comments, there are just too many. But just reading some of the comments, one becomes aware how badly even second and third generations have been affected by the traumatic experiences of their parents or grandparents.

Even if Peter and I have not been affected personally by traumatic war experiences so I must say that as children and later young adults we were very much aware how much suffering the war had caused. Some families were totally or nearly totally wiped out because of the holocaust, military casualties or bombing raids on civilians. o All survivors from families with such traumatic experiences were experiencing trauma themselves and even the next generation became very aware that the parents were affected by war.

I wonder, how many people, alive today, have never been affected by war? Wars continue to be fought in a lot of countries and a lot of continents. The refugee crisis is now worse than ever. Is mankind going backwards? The few people, who are not affected by wars, do they not ever consider how wars affect the rest of humanity? For as long as some of us can live in peace, we do not care what is being done to the rest of humanity? How can we be so selfish? Has it just got to do with a survival wish?

Or is it just a feeling that we have no power to stop wars? But at least we can voice an opinion that we do not want all these wars, can’t we? I really do wonder whether mankind has any chance that some true peacekeepers with a lot of power will come to the fore once more to stop all this fighting! Well, for as long as there is life, there is hope! Or is there?

On July 25, 2014 John Lord published a Post about whether Grammar matters

The heading of this post by John Lord from 2014 was:

My Last Post?

The post started as follows:

“In the everyday context of reading and interpreting the written word. Does grammar matter? Should those who have good grammatical skills refrain from criticism?

Should those lacking good English desist from airing a view even though the value of their contribution is unquestioned? Or in the broader context should those of little formal educational merit abstain from expressing an opinion? . . . . ”

To read on please go to:

http://theaimn.com/last-post/

John Lord said in his post:

“. . . . This blog does not employ a proof reader. It relies on its writers to get it right. Unfortunately this writer who is almost entirely self-educated is the biggest culprit. Inevitably everything I write comes under criticism for one grammatical error or another. And rightly so I might add. So much so that, sometimes, there are more comments about my grammar than the subject of my writing. . . . ”

Towards the end of the blog John Lord wrote as follows:

” So I finish where I started.

“Should those lacking good English skills desist from airing a view even though the value of their contribution is unquestioned. Or in the broader context should those of little formal educational merit abstain from expressing an opinion?”
The answer is of course an empathetic NO.

Undoubtedly there will be some who will find fault with this piece. You can email any corrections to me and I will correct them. You can as a lot of people choose to do, tell me in the comments. However, I defy any reader to say they cannot comprehend the meaning of my language.

johnlord@wideband.net.au

Finally I’d like to make a comment on the subject. I did not finish high-school and have never been to university. English is my second language. I have been blogging since July 2011. I very much enjoy the contact with other bloggers. I am aware that university educated people do find that there is a lot wrong with the way I write. I know that my daughters as well as my son may point to quite a few errors in any of my writing that I have published.

Free Trade Agreements

Here is an article by Kaye Lee in The AIMN – The Australian Independent Media Network:

http://theaimn.com/andrew-robb-naive-just-photo-shoot/

I started reading this article and soon found out that Australia’s steel industry as well as the car industry is as good as finished. What good can it be for Australia to have no such industry of our own anymore?

” . . . As thousands of people stand to lose their jobs in the steel industry, we are informed by our Prime Minister and Treasurer that Bill Shorten is endangering our free trade agreements by suggesting we use Australian steel in public works. . . ”

” . . . . For the car industry, the free trade agreements were yet another nail in the coffin with cheap cars from South Korea, Japan and China about to flood the market. Support for transitioning the industry to innovative manufacture of clean cars or superior quality parts evaporated. Had they had some assistance during the period when mining had forced the Aussie dollar to record highs, this industry may have survived along with the hundreds of thousands of jobs and the skills training it provided, but with no time to transition, they couldn’t survive the FTAs. . . . . ”

“An analysis by the World Bank shows that the Trans Pacific Partnership would grow Australia’s GDP by just 0.7% by 2030.”

And on it goes:

“Little has been said about the 15,000 jobs in Australia’s pulp, paper and fibre packaging industry that are now at risk.”

“The Ai Group estimates that the local industry can expect to face almost $1billion of Chinese imports over the next four years, warning that Australian paper and packaging companies could “make the strategic decision to move manufacturing to China, as this is the business model currently being rewarded under ChAFTA.”

“Even the much vaunted deal on beef exports is not as good as they would have us believe.”

“The Chinese deal on beef is only for an extra 10% exports before a trigger where tariffs will be charged again, and the proposed tariff reduction will not fully take place for nine years.”

Well, I copied here bits and pieces of Kaye Lee’s article. These bits and pieces are sufficient to make me most upset. How can the majority of Australian voters believe that our government acts in the interest of Australians?

The Effect, Lucy Prebble takes on pharma capitalism and the folly of a pain-free life.

Off-Broadway • Mar 21, 2016

http://www.theatermania.com/off-broadway/reviews/the-effect_76408.html?cid=outbrain

So much of this play is about human resistance to uniformity and the scientific method itself: How can one person truly serve as a control for another when the two subjects have radically different backgrounds, attitudes, and chemical predispositions?

Affordable Housing

http://www.domain.com.au/news/why-my-family-has-given-up-on-the-sydney-property-dream–for-now-20160405-gnyjnq/

Above is a link to the blog that Nikki Wallman wrote about her family’s move from Sydney to Bowral. She points out that Sydney is much too expensive for first home buyers. Apparently they made a good choice in moving to Bowral where they bought “a lovely, light-filled, four-bedroom, three-bathroom house on a big block in a beautiful wonky street where daisies grow wild and cockatoos call to each other like grumpy old men.”

And she goes on writing:

“Enormous trees hug the skyline around our deck; we’re walking distance to town. We’ve made great friends who live down the road (Bowral seems flush with young families in similar situations to ours). We stroll there with the pram, past the “ducks crossing” signs, for drinks and playtime in the backyard.”

Nikki writes how much they love Sydney life. However, “the increasing stress of chasing tails and deposits and ever-rising house prices” was grinding them down.

This reminds me of C and M, who were renting for ten years a two bedroom unit in the Eastern suburbs of Sydney. Paying rent in Sydney they would never have been able to save up enough money for a deposit on a house. Finally they decided they could commute from the South Coast. It means for them long hours on the train to Sydney and back. But finally they are in a position to save a bit of money and look for a suitable affordable place some distance away from Sydney.

C is our daughter. She lived with M for close to ten years already. M is the father of two children, who are by now both in their twenties and continue to live in Sydney. We offered to C and M to live with us for the time being. This should give them some time to look for suitable housing in our area. For Peter and me it is very beneficial to have family around. Right now C is away on an overseas business trip, and that means, we all miss her a lot. She’ll be away for all of April!

Many months ago, before the great influx of refugees to European countries, we did already some bookings for the month of June. So Peter and I are now looking forward to go to Berlin to see our German family once more, as well as some old friends. We are going to be there with quite a few of our Australian family which is rather exciting!