26 January 2019
Australian attitudes to
immigration: a love / hate relationship
by The
Ethics Centre
24
January 2019
IMMIGRATION
Share
this article
To curb or not to curb immigration is one of the
more polarising questions Australia is contemporarily grappling with, amid
anxieties over an increasing population and its impact on the infrastructure of
cities.
Over the past decade, Australia has seen a 2.5 million rise in our population, with a growth of almost 400,000 people in the last year. The majority of last year's increase – about 61 percent net growth – were immigrants.
Different studies reveal vastly different attitudes.
Over the past decade, Australia has seen a 2.5 million rise in our population, with a growth of almost 400,000 people in the last year. The majority of last year's increase – about 61 percent net growth – were immigrants.
Different studies reveal vastly different attitudes.
Times are
changing
While Australians have become progressively more
concerned about a growing population, they still see the benefits of
immigration, according to two different surveys.
In a new survey recently conducted by the Australian National University, only 30 percent of Australians – compared to 45 percent in 2010 – are in favour of population growth.
The 15 percent drop over the past decade is credited to concerns about congested and overcrowded cities, and an expensive and out-of-reach housing market.
Nearly 90 percent believed population growth should be parked because of the high price of housing, and 85 percent believed there was and 85 per cent believed cities were far too congested and overcrowded. Pressure on the natural environment was also a concern.
But a Scanlon Foundation survey has revealed that despite alarm over population growth, the majority of Australians still appreciate the benefits of immigration.
In a new survey recently conducted by the Australian National University, only 30 percent of Australians – compared to 45 percent in 2010 – are in favour of population growth.
The 15 percent drop over the past decade is credited to concerns about congested and overcrowded cities, and an expensive and out-of-reach housing market.
Nearly 90 percent believed population growth should be parked because of the high price of housing, and 85 percent believed there was and 85 per cent believed cities were far too congested and overcrowded. Pressure on the natural environment was also a concern.
But a Scanlon Foundation survey has revealed that despite alarm over population growth, the majority of Australians still appreciate the benefits of immigration.
In support
of immigration
In the Mapping
Social Cohesion survey from 2018, 80 percent believed
“immigrants are generally good for Australia’s economy”.
Similarly, 82 percent of Australians saw immigration as beneficial to “bringing new ideas and cultures”.
The Centre for Independent Studies’ own polling has shown Australians who responded supported curbing immigration, at least until “key infrastructure has caught up”.
In polling by the Lowy Institute last year, 54 percent of respondents had anti-immigration sentiments. The result reflected a 14 percent rise compared to the previous year.
Respondents believed the “total number of migrants coming to Australia each year” was too high, and there were concerns over how immigration could be affecting Australia’s national identity.
While 54 percent believed “Australia’s openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as a nation”, trailing behind at 41 percent, Australians said “if [the nation is] too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation”.
The question that remains is what will Australia do about it?
Similarly, 82 percent of Australians saw immigration as beneficial to “bringing new ideas and cultures”.
The Centre for Independent Studies’ own polling has shown Australians who responded supported curbing immigration, at least until “key infrastructure has caught up”.
In polling by the Lowy Institute last year, 54 percent of respondents had anti-immigration sentiments. The result reflected a 14 percent rise compared to the previous year.
Respondents believed the “total number of migrants coming to Australia each year” was too high, and there were concerns over how immigration could be affecting Australia’s national identity.
While 54 percent believed “Australia’s openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as a nation”, trailing behind at 41 percent, Australians said “if [the nation is] too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation”.
The question that remains is what will Australia do about it?
What are the
next steps?
The Coalition government under Scott Morrison
recently proposed to cap immigration to 190,000
immigrants per year. Whether such a proposition is the right course of action,
and will placate anxieties over population growth, remains to be seen.
Join our
upcoming debate
We'll be debating IQ2: Curb Immigration on March 26th at Sydney Town
Hall. For the full line-up and ticket info simply click here
Get
involved
Follow us
on
Copyright
2019. All rights reserved
_________________________________________________________________
25 January 2019
Waitangi Day (6 February)
Michael Belgrave is a historian and foundation member of Massey
University's Albany campus. He was previously research manager of the
Waitangi Tribunal. This piece that follows was originally published at the Lowy Institute.
"In a little more than a week, New Zealand will celebrate its national day, Waitangi Day. This year will mark the 178th anniversary of the Treaty of Waitangi, the agreement between the British Crown and New Zealand Maori rangatira (chiefs) that led to New Zealand becoming a British colony.
A new prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, will be accompanied onto Te Tii marae (next to the Waitangi Treaty Grounds) by an old campaigner, Titiwhai Harawira. In the past, Harawira and her whanau (family) have actively disrupted the day’s ceremonies as part of a campaign of ongoing resistance against colonisation and its consequences.
Last year, then prime minister Bill English refused to go to Waitangi after being informed he would not be welcome to speak. In 1990 Queen Elizabeth was hit by a wet T-shirt thrown by a protester. Don Brash, leader of the opposition, faced a barrage of mud in 2004, and Steven Joyce, a minister in the previous government, was hit with a dildo in 2016, earning him unwanted international attention.
Unsurprisingly, governments treat the day with nervousness, if not outright dread.
Yet alongside these sometimes violent protests, commemorations at Waitangi are full of fun, pageantry and display, particularly by the Royal New Zealand Navy which sees itself as a direct inheritor of British Captain William Hobson's 19th-century naval mission to New Zealand. The weather is usually good for picnicking and enjoying displays of waka (canoe) racing and the spectacular settings of the Waitangi Treaty Grounds, which sweep down to the waters of the Bay of Islands.
Some low-key ceremonies take place in other parts of the country, particularly where the treaty was taken after 1840. Ngāi Tahu, the major South Island iwi (tribe), celebrate Waitangi at Okains Bay, reminding the long-dead Hobson that they too signed the treaty, refuting his claim that Britain claimed the island through discovery. For almost everyone else, Waitangi Day means a day at the beach, barbecues, family outings, another holiday, with little thought to Waitangi or its implications as a national day.
All of this seems somewhat bizarre for a day supposedly celebrating national identity and unity in a common history. It reflects an ‘only in New Zealand moment’, where tension and dramatic protest are intertwined with high levels of personal engagement between Maori leaders and government.
Maori are not outsiders. The New Zealand Parliament today has 29 members, of a total 120, who can claim Maori descent. In the parliament a few months prior to the last election, the leader or deputy leader of every political party was Maori, bar one – the one-person United Party.
Young Maori activists in the 1960s, reflecting an increasing period of militant protest internationally, used Waitangi as a site to protest loss of Maori land, mana, and cultural identity. Their elders, often veterans the Maori Battalion in the Second World War, looked on uncomfortably, and accommodations with government were often the target of youth protest.
Two generations on, the world is very different. While protest at Waitangi continues, it needs to be seen alongside a much greater level of Maori economic, political and cultural incorporation in New Zealand society.
Treaty settlements have transferred significant sums to Maori tribal authorities. However small these may be as a proportion of what was lost, Maori authorities have used these sums to generate considerable wealth beyond the original settlement. While Māori inequality and institutional racism remain, Maori self-confidence has increased greatly.
For those who want to see Maori as outside of New Zealand society, to see iwi and kiwi as distinct, even incompatible, Waitangi Day is inappropriate as a national day. Attacks on Maori language and the recognition of Maori cultural identity in public life continue. But there are few alternatives as a national day and little real pressure to replace it.
Ironically, two other days that have been debated for official recognition are both linked to Maori concerns. In 2017 a day for commemoration of the New Zealand Wars was set aside on the anniversary of the 1835 signing of the Declaration of Independence, an event many Maori see as overriding British claims of sovereignty in 1840. The second event, Matariki, is a Maori midwinter celebration.
In recent years, Anzac Day has emerged much more as a day of national unity. New Zealand’s big power aspirations are completely non-existent, and Anzac Day in the country does not share the controversial sabre-rattling of its Australian equivalent. Maori are strongly represented in New Zealand's Armed Forces, and have been particularly connected to the day. Maori Television took the initiative in turning the day into a very big event, and other media catching up slowly.
It would seem that whatever the day, the politics, conflicts and tensions that can arise will transform its meaning over time. The celebration of Anzac Day as a day of unity still comes as a surprise to those of us who remember protests against the Vietnam War, which saw that public day as the most divisive in Australia and New Zealand.
Waitangi Day was once an irrelevant and marginal part of New Zealand's official calendar, with European New Zealanders more focused on the settler ships that arrived at the same time as Hobson as the founding point in the country’s history. From the 1940s the day was commemorated at Waitangi, after the land was presented to the nation by Lord Bledisloe in 1934.
From about that time, Waitangi became the symbol of a new nationalism, which focused on New Zealand as a South Pacific nation. Politicians celebrated what they claimed were the best race relations in the world, often making an explicit contrast with Australia.
When New Zealand decided early in the federation deliberations of the late 19th century to be an observer rather than a participant, New Zealanders were saved from Australia Day. While the contrast between the symbolism of the two days suggests their decision was right, both Australians and New Zealanders will for the most part share a determination not to take their national days too seriously. And this is not a bad thing."
______________________________________________________________________
25 January 2019
"In a little more than a week, New Zealand will celebrate its national day, Waitangi Day. This year will mark the 178th anniversary of the Treaty of Waitangi, the agreement between the British Crown and New Zealand Maori rangatira (chiefs) that led to New Zealand becoming a British colony.
A new prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, will be accompanied onto Te Tii marae (next to the Waitangi Treaty Grounds) by an old campaigner, Titiwhai Harawira. In the past, Harawira and her whanau (family) have actively disrupted the day’s ceremonies as part of a campaign of ongoing resistance against colonisation and its consequences.
Last year, then prime minister Bill English refused to go to Waitangi after being informed he would not be welcome to speak. In 1990 Queen Elizabeth was hit by a wet T-shirt thrown by a protester. Don Brash, leader of the opposition, faced a barrage of mud in 2004, and Steven Joyce, a minister in the previous government, was hit with a dildo in 2016, earning him unwanted international attention.
Unsurprisingly, governments treat the day with nervousness, if not outright dread.
Yet alongside these sometimes violent protests, commemorations at Waitangi are full of fun, pageantry and display, particularly by the Royal New Zealand Navy which sees itself as a direct inheritor of British Captain William Hobson's 19th-century naval mission to New Zealand. The weather is usually good for picnicking and enjoying displays of waka (canoe) racing and the spectacular settings of the Waitangi Treaty Grounds, which sweep down to the waters of the Bay of Islands.
Some low-key ceremonies take place in other parts of the country, particularly where the treaty was taken after 1840. Ngāi Tahu, the major South Island iwi (tribe), celebrate Waitangi at Okains Bay, reminding the long-dead Hobson that they too signed the treaty, refuting his claim that Britain claimed the island through discovery. For almost everyone else, Waitangi Day means a day at the beach, barbecues, family outings, another holiday, with little thought to Waitangi or its implications as a national day.
All of this seems somewhat bizarre for a day supposedly celebrating national identity and unity in a common history. It reflects an ‘only in New Zealand moment’, where tension and dramatic protest are intertwined with high levels of personal engagement between Maori leaders and government.
Maori are not outsiders. The New Zealand Parliament today has 29 members, of a total 120, who can claim Maori descent. In the parliament a few months prior to the last election, the leader or deputy leader of every political party was Maori, bar one – the one-person United Party.
Young Maori activists in the 1960s, reflecting an increasing period of militant protest internationally, used Waitangi as a site to protest loss of Maori land, mana, and cultural identity. Their elders, often veterans the Maori Battalion in the Second World War, looked on uncomfortably, and accommodations with government were often the target of youth protest.
Two generations on, the world is very different. While protest at Waitangi continues, it needs to be seen alongside a much greater level of Maori economic, political and cultural incorporation in New Zealand society.
Treaty settlements have transferred significant sums to Maori tribal authorities. However small these may be as a proportion of what was lost, Maori authorities have used these sums to generate considerable wealth beyond the original settlement. While Māori inequality and institutional racism remain, Maori self-confidence has increased greatly.
For those who want to see Maori as outside of New Zealand society, to see iwi and kiwi as distinct, even incompatible, Waitangi Day is inappropriate as a national day. Attacks on Maori language and the recognition of Maori cultural identity in public life continue. But there are few alternatives as a national day and little real pressure to replace it.
Ironically, two other days that have been debated for official recognition are both linked to Maori concerns. In 2017 a day for commemoration of the New Zealand Wars was set aside on the anniversary of the 1835 signing of the Declaration of Independence, an event many Maori see as overriding British claims of sovereignty in 1840. The second event, Matariki, is a Maori midwinter celebration.
In recent years, Anzac Day has emerged much more as a day of national unity. New Zealand’s big power aspirations are completely non-existent, and Anzac Day in the country does not share the controversial sabre-rattling of its Australian equivalent. Maori are strongly represented in New Zealand's Armed Forces, and have been particularly connected to the day. Maori Television took the initiative in turning the day into a very big event, and other media catching up slowly.
It would seem that whatever the day, the politics, conflicts and tensions that can arise will transform its meaning over time. The celebration of Anzac Day as a day of unity still comes as a surprise to those of us who remember protests against the Vietnam War, which saw that public day as the most divisive in Australia and New Zealand.
Waitangi Day was once an irrelevant and marginal part of New Zealand's official calendar, with European New Zealanders more focused on the settler ships that arrived at the same time as Hobson as the founding point in the country’s history. From the 1940s the day was commemorated at Waitangi, after the land was presented to the nation by Lord Bledisloe in 1934.
From about that time, Waitangi became the symbol of a new nationalism, which focused on New Zealand as a South Pacific nation. Politicians celebrated what they claimed were the best race relations in the world, often making an explicit contrast with Australia.
When New Zealand decided early in the federation deliberations of the late 19th century to be an observer rather than a participant, New Zealanders were saved from Australia Day. While the contrast between the symbolism of the two days suggests their decision was right, both Australians and New Zealanders will for the most part share a determination not to take their national days too seriously. And this is not a bad thing."
______________________________________________________________________
25 January 2019
Every year in both Australia and New Zealand there is some criticism of the Celebration of both Australia Day and Waitangi Day with respect to the treatment of the existing population of each country prior to the British "Invasion".
The following article was copied from the Australian Ethics Center.
Link: http://www.ethics.org.au/On-Ethics/blog/January-2019/Change-the-date-Change-the-nation
Like
clockwork, every January Australians question when is, or even if there
is, an appropriate time to celebrate the nationhood of Australia. And
each year, a growing number of Australians acknowledge that the 26thof January is not an appropriate date for an inclusive celebration.
There are no sound reasons why the date shouldn’t be changed but there are plenty of reasons why the nation needs to change.
I’ve written about that date before, its origins and forgotten stories and recent almost-comical attempts to protect a public holiday. I choose not to repeat myself, because the date will change.
For many, the jingoism behind Australia Day is representative of a settler colonialism state that should not be preserved. A nation that is not, and has never been fair, free or young. So, I choose to put my energy into changing the nation. And I am not alone.
People are catching up and contributing their voices to the call to change the nation, but this is not a new discussion. On 26 January 1938, on the 150thanniversary of the British invasion of this continent, a group of Aboriginal people in NSW wrote a letter of protest, calling it a Day of Mourning. They asked the government to consider what that day meant to them, the First Peoples, and called for equality and justice.
Since 1938, the 26thof January continues to be commemorated as a Day of Mourning. The date is also known as Survival Day or Invasion Day to many. Whatever people choose to call that day, it is not a date suitable for rejoicing.
It was inconsiderate to have changed the date in 1994 to the 26th January. And, now the insensitivity is well known, it’s selfish not to change the date again. The only reasons I can fathom for opposition to changing the date is white privilege, or perhaps even racism.
These antiquated worldviews of white superiority will continue to haunt Australia until a critical mass has self reflected on power and privilege and whiteness, and acknowledges past and present injustices. I believe we’re almost there – which explains the frantic push back.
A belief in white righteousness quietened the voices of reason and fairness when the first fleet landed on the shores of this continent. And it enabled colonisers and settlers to participate in and/or witness without objection decades of massacres, land and resource theft, rape, cultural genocide and other acts of violence towards First Peoples.
The voice of whiteness is also found in present arguments, like when the violence of settlement is justified by what the British introduced. It is white superiority to insist science, language, religion, law and social structures of an invading force are benevolent gifts.
First Peoples already had functioning, sophisticated social structures, law, spiritual beliefs, science and technology. Combining eons of their own advances in science with long standing trade relations with Muslim neighbours, First Peoples were already on an enviable trajectory.
Tales of white benevolence, whether real or imagined, will not obliterate stories of what was stolen or lost. Social structures implanted by the new arrivals were not beneficial for First Peoples, who were barred from economic participation and denied genuine access to education, health and justice until approximately the 1970s.
Due to systemic racism, power and privilege, and social determinants, these introduced systems of justice, education and health still have entrenched access and equity barriers for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Changing the nation involves settler colonialists being more aware of the history of invasion and brutal settlement, as well as the continuing impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It involves an active commitment to reform, which includes paying the rent.
The frontier wars did not result in victory for settler colonialists, because the fight is not over. The sovereignty of approximately 600 distinctly different cultural/language groups was never ceded. Despite generations of violence and interference from settler colonialists, First Peoples have not been defeated.
Having lived on this continent for close to 80,000 years and surviving the violence of colonisation and ongoing injustices of non-Indigenous settlement, the voices of First Peoples cannot be dismissed. The fight for rights is not over.
The date will change. And, although it will take longer, the nation will change. There are enough still standing to lead this change – so all Australians can finally access the freedoms, equality and justice that Australia so proudly espouses.
Karen Wyld is a freelance writer and consultant of Martu descent, living on Karuna Country.
Follow The Ethics Centre on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn.
There are no sound reasons why the date shouldn’t be changed but there are plenty of reasons why the nation needs to change.
I’ve written about that date before, its origins and forgotten stories and recent almost-comical attempts to protect a public holiday. I choose not to repeat myself, because the date will change.
For many, the jingoism behind Australia Day is representative of a settler colonialism state that should not be preserved. A nation that is not, and has never been fair, free or young. So, I choose to put my energy into changing the nation. And I am not alone.
People are catching up and contributing their voices to the call to change the nation, but this is not a new discussion. On 26 January 1938, on the 150thanniversary of the British invasion of this continent, a group of Aboriginal people in NSW wrote a letter of protest, calling it a Day of Mourning. They asked the government to consider what that day meant to them, the First Peoples, and called for equality and justice.
Since 1938, the 26thof January continues to be commemorated as a Day of Mourning. The date is also known as Survival Day or Invasion Day to many. Whatever people choose to call that day, it is not a date suitable for rejoicing.
It was inconsiderate to have changed the date in 1994 to the 26th January. And, now the insensitivity is well known, it’s selfish not to change the date again. The only reasons I can fathom for opposition to changing the date is white privilege, or perhaps even racism.
These antiquated worldviews of white superiority will continue to haunt Australia until a critical mass has self reflected on power and privilege and whiteness, and acknowledges past and present injustices. I believe we’re almost there – which explains the frantic push back.
A belief in white righteousness quietened the voices of reason and fairness when the first fleet landed on the shores of this continent. And it enabled colonisers and settlers to participate in and/or witness without objection decades of massacres, land and resource theft, rape, cultural genocide and other acts of violence towards First Peoples.
The voice of whiteness is also found in present arguments, like when the violence of settlement is justified by what the British introduced. It is white superiority to insist science, language, religion, law and social structures of an invading force are benevolent gifts.
First Peoples already had functioning, sophisticated social structures, law, spiritual beliefs, science and technology. Combining eons of their own advances in science with long standing trade relations with Muslim neighbours, First Peoples were already on an enviable trajectory.
Tales of white benevolence, whether real or imagined, will not obliterate stories of what was stolen or lost. Social structures implanted by the new arrivals were not beneficial for First Peoples, who were barred from economic participation and denied genuine access to education, health and justice until approximately the 1970s.
Due to systemic racism, power and privilege, and social determinants, these introduced systems of justice, education and health still have entrenched access and equity barriers for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Changing the nation involves settler colonialists being more aware of the history of invasion and brutal settlement, as well as the continuing impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It involves an active commitment to reform, which includes paying the rent.
The frontier wars did not result in victory for settler colonialists, because the fight is not over. The sovereignty of approximately 600 distinctly different cultural/language groups was never ceded. Despite generations of violence and interference from settler colonialists, First Peoples have not been defeated.
“You came here only recently, and you took our land away from us by force. You have almost exterminated our people, but there are enough of us remaining to expose the humbug of your claim, as white Australians, to be a civilised, progressive, kindly and humane nation.”
‘Aborigines Claim Citizen Rights!: A Statement of the Case for the Aborigines Progressive Associations’, The Publicist, 1938, p.3
Having lived on this continent for close to 80,000 years and surviving the violence of colonisation and ongoing injustices of non-Indigenous settlement, the voices of First Peoples cannot be dismissed. The fight for rights is not over.
The date will change. And, although it will take longer, the nation will change. There are enough still standing to lead this change – so all Australians can finally access the freedoms, equality and justice that Australia so proudly espouses.
Karen Wyld is a freelance writer and consultant of Martu descent, living on Karuna Country.
Follow The Ethics Centre on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn.
12 April 2018
Plea from a farmers wife savagely attacked in Eastern Cape - Click on Link below
https://20953.mc.
_______________________________________________________________
3 June 2016
Submitted by Jane Walters who spent some time in Durban recently and now back in Oz.
"All my birthday celebrations here, if celebration is the right word for 80, were splendid. Michael and wife Thelma arrived on Sunday the 8th
of May so were here for a few days before Cindy so that was the first
treat and we did some good stuff, mostly in the form of spending the
evenings together eating dinners cooked by me because Michael had work
to do during the day. Then Cindy arrived on Thursday the 12th in the evening. M and T fetched her from the airport and we all ate dinner
(cooked by me) together which was fun, particularly for those not
cooking! We did some good stuff like go to the Ellington –a great jazz club we have in Perth which we all really enjoyed. That was Friday the 13th – lucky for some.
Then Cindy arrived on Thursday the 12 | |||
| 1. The Toast |
On Saturday we all had lunch with Andy and son, Josh, at a very fine restaurant – Il Lido in Cottesloe - so that was also good. After that we, minus Andy and Josh, went to a real dive –
where an excellent trad jazz band plays on Saturday afternoons - The
Railway – Michael and Thelma love it – Cindy prerferred the Ellington. One can get a room there for $25 a night. One shudders to think what the room might be like. We were joined by Angela and dreary old husband, Danny but we were brave especially after the jazz gig when we all went to a very good restaurant where said dreary old Danny behaved extremely badly as usual.
Andy and Josh were not with us for the jazz and dinner because Angela and Danny still do not speak to Andrew. It must be nineteen years now – one must never lose hold of a good vendetta. They would probably speak to Joshua – I haven’t tried them out!
Andy and Josh were not with us for the jazz and dinner because Angela and Danny still do not speak to Andrew. It must be nineteen years now – one must never lose hold of a good vendetta. They would probably speak to Joshua – I haven’t tried them out!
On
Sunday morning more or less at sparrers we, being M and T, Cindy, my
sister Diana and I, all flew off to Darwin where we picked up a six
seater 4wheel drive. We spent the night in Darwin in a good enough hotel
called The Vibe. Diana knows a young man, Tim, who works in Darwin on a
huge gas plant, who is the son of
friends of hers and he was terrific. He came to the hotel and took us on
a guided tour of the city. It is a really nice town these days if still a trifle HOT. It was 35 C the day we were there. We finished up watching the sunset from the Darwin Boating Club, then we had dinner there. All good fun.
The following morning – Monday – we headed off into the bundu to the beautiful glamping resort,Bamurru Plains and our three days there was Michael and Cindy’s 80th
gift to me. It is one of those places that is so expensive that
everything is ‘free’ – ie drinks, meals etc. It is a really classy place
with very good food and wine as well as beer and other drinks of
course. We all loved it and it was a huge treat. Totally
in the middle of absolutely nowhere. Cindy fell in Love with the
Northern Territory where she had been before but said that her first
trip had been too rushed – too much driving - for her to really
appreciate it, so when Dina and I said we were going back there next
year to Kakadu and Arnhem Land she asked if she and Jan could join us.
With pleasure we said!
I have been terribly spoilt throughout the 80th celebrations. What is so good about 80 one wonders??
On Thursday 19th May we were back in Perth latish so had a quiet evening getting ready to go down south to the Bunker Bay Resort for Friday and Saturday nights, Saturday, as you knew,
being my actual birthday. The weather was wild, wet and windy and
pretty cool so a great contrast to the Northern Territory. I am thinking of an owl as I love owls and one of the opals is significantly smaller than the other. On the evening of the 80th
dinner which we had at the resort, Andrew produced a bottle of Krug to
toast my longevity so that was also very generous and delicious. I
believe that Krug is Elizabeth II’s favourite champagne. I had never
tried it, not rising to French champagne too often and particularly not such as Krug!
 |
| 2. Beautiful Bamarru |
 |
| 3. Sunset, Darwin Boating Club |
Off to beautiful Broome for the 6th 7th and 8th of June – back to Perth on the 9th,with my three sisters – Broome being one of my very favourite places and that will finally be the end of the celebrations.
Lots of love
Jane xx"Image 1 - Andy, Cindy in very high heels, me, Joshua, sisters Diana and Suzette and Michael
Image 2 - Beautiful Bamarru - the absolute middle of nowhere
Image 3 - Cindy, Thelma - Michael's wife, Michael, sister Diana and me
No comments:
Post a Comment