Just to give you a feel for the debate, I’ve collected quotes from those Senators who spoke in favour of the bill. I think it’s interesting to hear what was said and how this bill was defended and passed (and it means you can be a bit more personal in your letters of thanks and appreciation!).
Page 55 of 58
Here’s the first part of my potted summary of the Senate debate on the TGA reform. This post is very long, but not as long as the three Senate Hansards (transcripts of parliamentary debates) that I waded through in order to collect this information. I’ll work on one for the House of Representatives during the next week, if I have the energy… I make no promises though – I’ve spent nearly 8 hours on this so far.
So approval of RU-486 is now in the hands of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, not the Health Minister. Which I think is a marvellous thing.
Perhaps even more wonderful to me is the way that the majority of women front and backbenchers, including women from all five marjor political parties, united regardless of party lines to present and pass this bill. And I hear they intend to continue to work together on other issues relevant to women, although I am yet to track down a source for this pleasing story.
Anyway. Having bombarded my politicians on occasion with many, many emails and letters, I would now like to write and thank the women and men who voted to make RU-486 a medical, not a political, issue.
If necessary, I will read all of Hansard for the last week and make a list – but if anyone already has a list, please let me know.
In the meantime, Sharman Stone (Liberal), Lyn Allison (Democrat), Fiona Nash (National), Claire Moore (Labour) and Judith Troeth (Liberal) – thank you for your co-sponsorship of the bill.
And Kerry Nettle (Greens) and Julia Gillard (Labour) thank you for speaking in its favour.
I know there are lots more, but these were the people I found most easily – I’ll add to this list once I’ve had a good look through Hansard.
This one goes to the tune of New York State of Mind, by Billy Joel. There is no real excuse for it.
Some folks like to get back home
With a DVD or a video
Grab a Fred Astaire musical
Or a Hitchcock show
But I’m taking out Wolfman
Ginger Snaps, and Frankenstein
I’m in a werewolf state of mind
I’ve seen all the movie stars
In their monster suits and their castles dark
Way up in Romania, in the mountains stark
But Silver Bullet‘s screening
And I don’t want to waste more time
I’m in a werewolf state of mind
It was so easy back when Buffy screened
With a brand new monster each week
But then the werewolves left us with Seth Green
With vampires there’s much less at stake…
It comes down to the fantasy
And it’s fine with me when it’s on my screen
Don’t care if it’s Lon Chaney or John Carradine
I don’t have any reasons
I’ve left them all behind
I’m in a werewolf state of mind
It was so easy back when Karloff starred
As Frankenstein and as old Fu Manchu
But watching Van Helsing I must conclude:
Not even werewolves could save this show…
It comes down to my DVDs
I’ll be Howling here in my living room
With Werewolves in Woodstock, or else in Washington
In the Company of Wolves
I’ll leave Dracula behind
I’m in a werewolf state of mind
When Frank & Drac meet the Wolfman, I won’t be far behind
‘Cause I’m in a werewolf state of mind
You may be aware that RU-486 is not currently legally available in Australia. What you may not be aware of is that this is because the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, currently has the ability to prevent the drug even being assessed by our Therapeutic Goods Administration.
I am, as you know, very pro-choice. But this isn’t actually about choice. To me, this is about whether we want our access to particular medicines controlled by scientists (including pharmacists and medical doctors), or by politicians.
Personally, I can quite see why some people are uncomfortable with the idea of RU-486. There may indeed be safety risks that are particular to Australia, where some of our country areas are really very remote. And there are, no doubt, ethical issues involved in any decision to terminate a pregnancy.
But safety and medical issues are best assessed by medical practitioners and research scientists.
And ethical issues associated with terminations of pregnancy are best decided by the people who will be most affected by them – women or couples, in association with anyone – doctor, clergyman, counsellor or friend – they wish to consult.
Not by a politician.
If you feel similarly, or want to make your feelings known to your Member of Parliament, go here to send an email to him or her.
Australians, if you’d like to let the Senate know what you think of the proposed laws, go here. We have just over five days in which to make our voices heard.
To me, these laws look suspiciously like a ticket back to the early days of the industrial revolution.
I note, for example, that while the 38-day week is ‘protected’, penalty payments for overtime are not – which means that you can still work more hours than that and not get penalty rates.
I also note that there appears to be no provision for sick leave.
And minimum wages will no longer be linked to inflation.
Also, if I understand correctly, attempting to bargain collectively in any way, or to assure that your wage is equivalent to others doing the same work in the same field, appears to carry huge penalties.
Frankly, these laws are terrifying, even for someone in a stable job (because, as it happens, while I can’t be unfairly dismissed from my current, larger-than-100-staff-members workplace, I can be dismissed for ‘operational reasons’ and then rehired on an individual contract). It completely baffles me that the government could think this is good for the economy – doesn’t a healthy economy rely on people having enough money to spend?
I’ll tell you what worries me most about these proposed ‘preventative’ anti-terror laws.
It isn’t that they are unconstitutional.
It isn’t that they are open to abuse.
It is that we are now open to penalisation not for our actions, which we can control, or our beliefs, which are to some extent our choice (although I would argue that beliefs should never be legislated anyway), but for what other people think our actions or beliefs may be now or on some future occasion.
This kind of legislation means that it is not enough simply to obey the law. One must also be seen to have the appearance of someone who would not consider disobeying the law.
I, for one, am terrified.
Bronwyn Bishop thinks it would be a good idea to ban head scarves at public schools. She thinks they are an ‘iconic item of defiance’.
Personally, I think this is appalling, counterproductive and stupid. We don’t even have the french excuse of banning all religious icons/symbols from schools – instead, we are singling out a single group from a single religion. And nobody should have to choose between an education and their religious beliefs. Wearing a headscarf harms no-one.
Can you think of a better way to transform headscarves from a personal, religious issue into a political statement?
Of course, these girls would still be able go to Muslim schools. They just couldn’t go into the (free) public school system. I would think this would make them more likely, in the long term, to be less integrated into mainstream society. Assuming there is even an Muslim school in their area that they can go to. There aren’t that many in Australia, and we seem to be cracking down on them, too, at present. They might be unAustralian, you know…
I also find this business particularly repellant because there is probably a cultural/social element to wearing headscarves; while for some it is undoubtedly a religious issue, for others it may simply be a matter of what is expected by their family/social network, and neither particularly oppressive or something they particularly feel strongly about. A rule like this would tend to polarise these people who might otherwise exist happily in the middle, and will serve to keep the two cultures separate (and potentially at odds) for longer than they need to be.
Now all I have to find out is who to write to…
Just posting a link to this site, which may be of interest to some people on my reading this: http://www.reproductivechoiceaustralia.org.au/take-action.htm
There is a call for the 81% of Australians who support a woman’s right to choose* to make their views known by contacting appropriate MPs. This is in response to Senator Ron Boswell, who has more or less called for those who are anti-abortion to show their support so that he can introduce a Private Member’s Bill that would restrict access to abortion.
Among other things it asks readers to send a ‘short and respectful’ email to the Prime Minister. I’ve just done so – I managed respectful, but didn’t quite hit ‘short’, particularly once I found myself listing all the very useful things he could do to really reduce the abortion rate in this country (more family-friendly work policies, better social and financial supports for parents, particularly parents of children with a disability, funding medical research into the prevention and therapy – and earlier prenatal diagnosis – of genetic disorders…).
Anyway, there it is. Read it, if you are interested, and act if your conscience dictates it.
*Has anyone else noticed that when you say ‘a woman’s right to choose’ everyone knows exactly which choice is being referred to, as though we had no other things we might choose to do or not to do with our lives?
I am not going to join the Labor party. I went to a branch meeting last night, and it was very interesting, and the people seemed very good. But for some reason it left me with the most incredibly depressed feeling. Partly, I felt like an imposter. For no concrete reason I can define, I also felt incredibly strongly that I should not be there, that it was wrong for me to be there, that I did not belong. I can’t even articulate it. It was like being back at school. Or worse. Which is odd, because the people there seemed very nice and some went out of their way to be friendly and welcoming. No idea why I felt so intimidated. But I left with the strong conviction that I had to go join the Greens. Which I am also not going to do until I’ve sat in on one of their meetings. I suspect, though, that it might be the same, even though I didn’t feel like an imposter when dealing with them.
I suspect that party politics very strongly do not suit me. It’s that nasty feeling of being pressed into a mold which I don’t fit (hence, no doubt, the family-feeling). The same thing as being at a rally – by being there, you are, with your body, showing agreement for everything that is said – even the bits you don’t agree with. A political party should be less like that, and probably is. But I could still feel the press closing in. It’s not so much that you have to feel exactly the same as everyone else… Hell. I really don’t know how to define it.
And that’s setting aside the gloomy conclusion I reached that it is Really True that to get to a position in politics where you can actually make a difference, you have to play so much politics that you can’t act on your convictions anyway. Unless you have a very, very strong personality and an amazing ability to keep it subdued to your own ends. Or your name is Joyce, and let me take a moment to breathe in the refreshing feeling of a Senator turning around and basically saying, I don’t care about party politics, I’m here to represent my constituents, and I’ll do so whether or not this is in line with party policy. Almost makes you want to vote National…
I recall my friend Paula saying something about politicians having to reflect the will of the constituents, and therefore not being able to be at the vanguard of change. Actually, she may not have said that, but that’s how I interpreted what I remember about the conversation. And I remember feeling utterly depressed by this – who else can change things, after all, and where is the idealism, or the chance to make Australia a better place? This is, of course, silly, because I complain loudly when people in power whose ideals I disagree with try to impose these on the rest of us… Yet, there has to be a way to do better than the lowest common denominator while still being true to your constituents. Perhaps Joyce has the solution, at that. A move away from party politics, towards a more individualistic approach, in which politicians truly attempt to reflect the needs of their constituents, and make only temporary alliances with those whose constituents have like needs. Let’s see our politicians crossing the floor, voting on principle and not on party policy. I probably still won’t like the results. I’m ornery like that. But I suspect it would be a better system.
(although without parties, where would people get money and support to run? My system is not perfect, and it is characteristic of me that it falls down on economics…)
Cate Speaks is now archived on PANDORA, the National Library of Australia's Web Archive
