Elizabeth Harmonisation is an amazingly ufesul word for the authoritarian because it can mean so many different things to so many different people. Linguists and propagandists would put it into the category of words known as weasel words. With harmony, the authoritarian can gently and sweetly say that we are just going to harmonise this and that. Give the herd the impression that A will happen, but in reality they mean that the less obvious B will happen. And when the herd finds out and jacks up, because you said harmonise, you can defend your self with that was the plan all along and how dare these objectors waste the community’s time now'.Sticks and carrots are offered to induce the herd down the path of authoritarianism dressed up as harmony. Sticks like pulling federal money, and carrots such as better mutual recognition and licensing. But when you read the fine print on the packet, the bribes will likely turn out to be empty and valueless and bad for your economic health.Lets stop bulls***ting each other and banish the word harmonise from the regulatory lexicon and restrict it to the music trade where it’s meaning is at least clear and precise.OK, so the States and Territories have different legislation. If you are a multi-state business you should by now already have uniform internal procedures & processes that assimilate the requirements of OHS legislation as well as a great deal of other legislation (yes there is more than just OHS) and a very wide range of other information that could never be the subject of regulation. And If you don’t, grow up, get help to think and act for yourself and stop waiting for mummy or big-brother to tell you what to do to deliver safety. I think it’s fair to accept that real federal OHS legislation that replaces all State OHS legislation, is impossible. But moreover, it is probably even undesirable, because regulatory competition between States through varied legislation has indeed kept some authoritarian cultures in check. And that alone was a very big national benefit that far outweighed any disadvantage from jurisdictional dis-harmony. Australia would get more bang-for-buck if top level economic oriented regulators, and not authoritarian inclined technocrats, instead simply identified the one, two or three most offensive bits of each State regulation or process and worked to bring them more back into economic sensibility to solve real and precisely stated problems. The laws may never get harmonised but as Les so rightly pointed out, does it matter?

Tseveen I appreciated both cmmneots. They led me to think about the difference between "training" and "education." May I suggest that "training" is something that is mandated from above, can be very important, and is probably mistaken for education in most discussions about rigor in K-12 education. Education, from its latin roots (to draw forth, to lead toward) is essentially an invitation to learning and knowledge.Here is one possible rationale for our current thinking about education: as a nation (whatever nation), we need a standardized set of knowledge to be received by each child in order to maintain (or grow) our prosperity --> we need to mandate that education because if left to the parents, it will not be consistent or even guaranteed --> now that we have this system in place, improvements to the system come from additional mandates. To me, that is training, not education. What has typically taken place in higher education, since it is "voluntary," is closer to what we call true "education."If we look at the results of the mandated education system in the U.S., for example, are we happy with the results? Of course, they vary, but I think by and large we are very concerned that students leave high school much less educated than we believe they should. So, if we're not getting the result that we would like, are we willing to question our methods? And that leads me back to the theme of "choice"--if we don't know what the right answer is, then we are most likely to see successful methods and innovation by allowing more choice in our schooling (especially since, as I've written, we aren't likely to even fully agree on what we think success is). So why are we afraid of choice? I think because we are afraid to not be in control; it is much easier and more comfortable to work within a system we know, no matter how flawed. And there are power structures that are inherent in existing systems, that aren't easily ceded.

mum Katie you look the part lol x

mum Not that difficult is it lol

Mum Hm sparkle's gone missing now.

mum I LOVE that log pile.

Mum With sparkly trousers! Love it. xx

Rach For me? xxx

Steven Yeah he was lovely. Disappeared the next day though. He'll either get home or some shepherd will bring him up I'm sure. They look after their dogs here