A FAMILY AFFAIR

Proof of identification is something you need when flying out of the country on an international fact-finding tour of strip clubs. But now it seems you need a screaming kid sitting next to you on the train as proof that you really are from a working family, writes MICK CARTONNE.    

Former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello once advised families during the budget that they should have three children - one for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country.

In other words we should all subscribe to his famous last election slogan and "go for growth" in the bedroom.

Never mind the fact that this would erode our savings because future governments at the state level would be able to save us by giving birth to policies using terms and conditions built on a layer of highly ambiguous phrases.

The family is the one social fraternity everybody is automatically initiated into albeit not by choice. Thankfully there are no creative swearing-in ceremonies such as midnight nudie runs in underwear worn by your grandparents in the eighties.

Sadly, though, it appears the NSW State Government has a narrow definition of the type of families that deserve what is virtually a free ride on public transport.

With polls riding the big dipper since the NSW ALP's re-election in 2007, a rare thing happened one day in the nation's most populous state run by the least popular state government; The government governed. 

Taking some time-off from the factional feuds, the then Premier, Nathan Rees, announced that families could enjoy a fun day out with unlimited travel on Sydney’s buses, trains and ferries every Sunday.

So if you had 27 kids and 10 wives, you probably couldn't afford to go on any of the rides at Luna Park. But you could afford to travel there and watch those who could. 

This vision was christened Family Funday Sunday. 

For $2.50 per person, your family could travel from the Blue Mountains to Manly as many times as you liked on the day of the Sabbath. 

But as with anything too good to be true, there's always a catch when it comes to catching public transport cheaply. 

The travelling group had to be related (obviously) and there had to be one child and one adult. A child is classified as someone under 16 years of age. How very convenient.

It is in the eyes of those responsible for bringing us into the world, that the age of a child does not change its role in the family. We're still little angels to our backseat procreators.

In a society that teaches us we're only as old as we feel, why won't MPs (Morons of the public order) give big kids a break as well?

It was Aussie larrikin Paul Hogan who reminded viewers in the film Flipper, "You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family."

And that includes the size of it, the demographic make-up and the tempestuous personality traits that tag along for the ride.
  .
Some families are small (2 kids and 2 parents), others not so such as the one my mother was born into starring three sisters, one brother and two adults (aka mummy and daddy) for a total of six people living under the same roof. 

No, they did not appear on Sylvania Waters.    
  
There are those that get along like the Brady Brunch where problems are solved by baking each other cakes if one sibling accidentally steals another's boyfriend or girlfriend. 

Meanwhile in the real world, the rest of us can't wait to turn 18, get a job and declare independence day by moving out of home into shared accomodation with drunk friends who end up depending on you to pay three-quarters of this week's rent.

Some don't move out of the nest until their thirties while those in their forties getting taken to the cleaners by the ex-wife, they give the expression homecoming a bad reputation. 

The point being? 

Families and the situations that exist within them are all different. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, family composition and structure is in a constant state of change. 

That would mean we're all part of some sort of family, right?

There are those who share so many rent-free, intoxicated moments at their best mates parents two-storey home, that they consider themselves as having a "second" family. 

Those giving their genealogical roots the silent treatment because they wouldn't give them their slice of the will at age twelve, they consider themselves as part of the human family minus the specific details. 

A sister may earn a six-figure salary while her brother takes home $25k per annum before tax.

Yet if the sister has three kids, two cars and a double storey house in Vaucluse, she is entitled to a "discount" on Sunday. Why? Because there is no means-test to determine if that person is fit for help from the government.

Meanwhile her less well-off sibling, and that's being kind about it, is required by law to pay full-fare if he is invited out by his sister to join them on an outing.

Further proof that if you don't have kids, can't get laid, and you're an economically disadvanted child in their thirties, still living at home and only earning a part-time income, basically the government won't be offering you change you can believe in. 

How can you be a child if you're 30 years-old?

If you're asking that question, you've obviously never argued with someone (usually female) who has let fly with the best retort of all: "You're acting like a child" to which those with an unlimited volt of wit reply (to the detriment of their health), "Well, dah! I am one".

Mensnewsdaily.com has also recently reported an even stranger occurance: a men's movement accusing women of being children.

And didn't anyone in the Department of Transport see the film "Stepbrothers" with Will Ferrell and John C.Reilly?  

You'd be hard-pressed not conclude that working families bring more future taxpayers and voters into this world and are considered an asset to the government.

But Battler's without Brats (BAB's), you're not pulling your weight because you knew how to properly read the instructions inside a packet of four seasons condoms, therefore you are a liability on the balance sheet. 
  
So I guess most of us will have to stay involved in that unhappy long-term love-hate relationship with a railway ticketing machine, unable to push the fun buttons because if we do, the fat transit cop won't believe you when you inform him that little Johnny just hopped off the train to spend the day with his mother.  

I suppose somebody has to pay for all the ministerial cars used by public servants to escape journalists interested in unveiling their secret night-time habits on the evening news.

NSW Families. Are they on the right track? I'm not sure. I can't afford a ticket.

SPEAKING OF PROBLEMS

Australia's skills shortage crisis took a turn for the worse this week with the House of Representatives still unable to fill the vacant position of House Speaker.

Rob Oakeshott put his hand up but that was considered by members of the conservative opposition to be more preposterous than making the Riddler the mayor of Gotham City.

Therefore it appears a new advertisement for the role will be doing the rounds in the employment section of the weekend papers along the following lines:

If you are considering running for the vacant position of Speaker in the lower-house, please express your interest if the following essential criteria applies to you or someone you know:

•  Have a minimum of two-years experience in Childcare
   
• You sat through Anger Management starring Jack Nicholson at least once.
   
• Support the equal opportunity for all act which includes cardboard cut-out representation of MP's absent due to emergency fact finding tours.
   
• Prepared to work overtime including early morning parliamentary sessions.
   
• Good problem solving skills including how to avoid another election if one house of reps MP dies before the parliamentary term expires in 2013.
   
• Are not prone to drowsiness or bench fatigue during quiet or lackluster periods of discourse.  

• Have never inhaled helium during work hours and will committ not to during your term in this role. 
  

Thank you

J.Gillard
The Job Network

GILLARD'S GRAND CHALLENGE

FORGET THE MINING TAX. PRIME MINISTER JULIA GILLARD HAS A GREATER CHALLENGE TO TACKLE.

Standing on a wharf in Clareville on Sydney’s northern beaches, my optically blurred binoculars keep staring at the magnificent view of Lion Island on a sunny day, spoilt only by a passer-by promoting climate change with his cigarette.

As much I would have loved to have glued my feet to the splinters of that jetty, my loyal focus was to far more pressing matters of the nation: the 2010 National Rugby League Finals series.

One week left, two footy teams, one telephone off the hook and a sign on the door informing any nearby mormons: DO NOT DISTURB. THE FOOTY’S ON.

Will the Sydney City Reds take out the big one or is this finally going to be the year of the St George Democrats?

In Australia four things are certain in life. Death, taxes, cold beer and the Prime Minister handing the Grand Final trophy to the captain of the winning team.

Times have changed. Globalization no longer means we just share the wealth. No, developed western nations have now also mastered the art of cloning each other’s results at the ballot box.

In May, the Poms declared their will was for a minority national government. Three-months later, Australia’s happy-go citizens played copycat and declared support for dysfunctional management too!

The result means the way the political game is played changes.

Taking that into consideration, a voter could easily be persuaded into thinking that every advantage  associated with securing national political office might also need to be reviewed.

Including the ceremonial-benefits scheme (CBS) that allows Prime Ministers with an electoral majority to participate in virtually any big cultural event on home soil.

A hung parliament gives birth to the most inconspicuous national question. Who should be the political face that gets a free trip to the football finals and one of the best seats in the house (pardon the pun)?

These unique electoral times we live in mean a process must be put in place to sort out the contenders from the pretenders for the position of NRL Grand Final trophy assistant.

A committee hearing will take too long which is why a Sky News poll might be the preferred option for resolving this stalemate.

It’s quick, inexpensive (unless your silly enough to vote with the red button on your Foxtel controller) and second-preferences won’t count.

There are a few ticks and crosses going against the obvious names that can be thrown into the hat.

Prime Minister Gillard has had a mixed season. Her Melbourne Storm side was stripped of two premierships for breaching the salary cap while she was stripped of 18-seats for breaching the trust of Kevin Rudd’s supporters in 7:30 report land. Her automatic role as trophy assistant is facing some serious scrutiny. But if she stares down her competition for this job, other challenges lie ahead. The NRL trophy requires both hands to lift it and is not in the lightweight division, meaning Australia’s first female Prime Minister once again may need to rely on the support of the independents.

Andrew Wilkie: Hailing from an electorate that has no national team in either Aussie Rules or Rugby League, makes it easier to put a question mark over his name with a big red permanent marker pen.

Tony Windsor: History’s diary shows that without the backing of either Tony Windsor or Rob Oakeshott, Julia Gillard would in all probability be out shopping at Woolworths to prepare for a backyard Grand Final BBQ, not getting a free lift to the Grand Final care of the Royal Australian Air Force. That gives Windsor a strong moral argument for putting his hand up for the job of trophy handler.

Rob Oakeshott: One-half of the political tag-team Australia doesn’t decide, we do, the Member for Lyne likes most sports. Similar to his North-Queensland counter-part, Bob Katter, the 40-year-old has a successful background in rugby (union). According to his website, the “highlight of his sporting career”, was an 8-4 victory by the Mid-North Coast Combined XV over the Australian Womens Rugby Team in his one and only test appearance. Combine passion, power and achievement and you’ve got a highly credible rival to Gillard on Grand Final night. Just don’t put him anywhere near a commentary box.

Bob Katter: Clearly when it comes to standing your ground, Bob is reliable, experienced and fearless. This makes him highly unlikely to fall off the mobile platform used for official post match proceedings as many others have come close to doing in the past.  With a football shield named after him in Queensland Rugby League circles, (the Bob Katter shield goes to the best player in the Carter Sheds Mid-West Rugby League grand final), you’d have to say he’s the candidate the greatest game of all can probably best relate to. Rugby League runs through the man’s blood and if anyone can whip a crowd into cheering for him rather than booing him as is the traditional response at the Grand Final presentation towards our leaders, Bob Katter could be a popular choice.

Adam Brandt: The newly-elected member for the seat of Melbourne is a supporter of increasing the Newstart allowance. Such a move could help more individuals and working families afford a ticket to the grand final in the years ahead. He’s a rising star who will probably see his electoral team, the Storm, return to the finals in season 2011. A future role at the Grand Final therefore makes sense.   

Winning the coveted role of trophy handling assistant in the grand scheme of things will come down to a lot of luck.