News from the Front

BEAZLEY’S NATIONAL PLAN TO ADDRESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

2006-11-25T20:41:00.000+11:00

24 November 2006 Today I am committing a Beazley Labor Government to a national long-term plan to address violence against women and children. As a husband and father of three daughters, I am sickened by violence against women and children. It is abhorrent and addressing it is everybody’s responsibility. I take seriously my role as a White Ribbon Day Ambassador and today I pledge that when I am Prime Minister I will provide the national leadership Australia needs to deal with violence against women and children and sexual assault. Key elements of the national plan under a Beazley Labor Government include:

Establishing a National Council on Violence against Women and Children. Council members will include survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, law enforcement agencies and academics;
Ensuring the Council presents the latest data, programs and progress to my Cabinet twice a year;
Establishing goals, timelines and responsibilities to ensure all levels of government and agencies are making progress;
Ensuring that schools teach values and respect and are able to provide information on violence and sexual assault;
Working with state governments and the community sector to improve access to crisis accommodation;
Improving the transition from crisis to long-term, secure, affordable accommodation;
Promoting successful local programs and helping turn them into effective national programs;
Implementing a public health issue response to prevent violence before it happens.

My approach will not replace criminal justice or human rights responses to violence. It is important we tackle all factors that lead to domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault, and it is also important that perpetrators are subject to the full force of the law. The Howard Government’s piecemeal approach is not working. Programs are funded then abandoned, advertising campaigns are started then scrapped and funds whittled away and redirected. Today, I have asked my Shadow Minister for Women Tanya Plibersek to work with stakeholders to develop the way forward, so that our work in government can begin as quickly as possible. A Beazley Labor Government will draw a line in the sand on domestic violence and sexual assault and provide the national leadership needed to address these terrible crimes.

For more on how Federal Labor intends to address violence against women and children, read the transcript of a speech by Tanya Plibersek, also delivered on 24 November.

Ms Magazine repeats historic 1972 abortion poll

2006-10-12T22:26:00.000+10:00

FEATURE | fall 2006 We Had Abortions These women invite you to join them in a campaign for honesty and freedom. March for Women's LivesIn its 1972 debut issue, Ms. Magazine ran a bold petition in which 53 well-known U.S. women declared that they had undergone abortions—despite state laws rendering the procedure illegal. These women were following the example of a 1971 manifesto signed by 343 prominent French women, who also had declared they had abortions. Even then, to many it seemed absurd that the government could deny a woman sovereignty over her own body. It is even more absurd in 2006 to learn that an abortion ban has passed into law in South Dakota, although it has been stayed until an initiative to remove the ban is voted on this November. Whatever happens in South Dakota, 17 other states now have trigger laws or pre-Roe v. Wade laws that could automatically ban abortion if the Supreme Court were to reverse Roe. A myriad of restrictions already limit access to abortion in the U.S. for poor women, young women and women in the military. We know it is time again for women of conscience to stand up and speak truth to power. At the time of the original Ms. petition, illegal abortions were causing untold suffering in the United States, especially for poor women who had to resort to unsafe self-induced or back-alley abortions. Today, in the developing nations, approximately 70,000 women and girls die each year from botched and unsafe abortions. Another 500,000 needless maternal deaths occur. Most of this suffering and loss could be prevented. U.S. international family-planning policies contribute to the death toll: first, by conditioning U.S. aid March Protestorson a global gag rule that prevents medical workers from even giving out information on abortion (let alone providing the service); second, by withholding or providing inadequate funds; and finally, by funding “abstinence-only” rather than comprehensive sex education. We are now starting a new petition, beginning with the names of some of the original 1972 signers. They signed to save lives and to spare other women the pain of socially imposed guilt.” Their purpose was “to repeal archaic and inhuman laws.” They recognized that because of the “social stigma still wrongly attached to abortion” many would not be able to sign publicly. But they invited all women to sign—“to help eliminate the stigma.” Ms. Reader Stories Ms. has been simply flooded with letters to the editor about our “We Had Abortions” petition. Women across the country are telling Ms. their stories, and we will be posting some of those stories here later this week. Send your story to letterstotheeditor@msmagazine.com. And, check back to see the latest reader stories and news about the Ms. petition! We recognize that, still, not every woman will be able to sign—33 years after Roe— even though abortion is a very common, necessary and important procedure for millions of women in the U.S. But if a multitude of women step forward publicly, and more and more continue to join us, we will transform the public debate. We know that women who have had abortions have spoken out many times during the last 33 years, and millions of women and men have marched in countless rallies and demonstrations. It is time to speak out again—in even larger numbers—and to make politicians face their neighbors, influential members of the community and, yes, their own family members who have had abortions. We cannot, must not, lose the right to safe and accessible abortion or access to birth control—for U.S. women and the women of the world. Just as in 1972, Ms. will send the signed petitions to the White House, members of Congress and state legislators. We will also post the petition online. And we ask signers to make a contribution so Ms. can promote the petition and provide needed funds to fight abortion bans and support targeted abortion providers, such as the sole remaining women’s clinic in Mississippi. Your name and your voice will make a difference. Sign the petition Contribute to spread the word Ms. in the News Watch a CNN segment on the Ms. “We Had Abortions” petition. Read the Associated Press article on the Ms. Petition. What the Blogs Are Saying The Ms. “We Had Abortions” petition has received tremendous coverage by our friends in the feminist and progressive blogosphere. Here is a sampling of these posts. Women Protest for Reproductive RightsHuffingtonPost.com's Becoming Fearless: In a post entitled “Fearless on Abortion,” author Angela Bonavoglia recounts her similar effort to destigmatize abortion in her book The Choices We Made: 25 Women and Men Speak Out About Abortion . Bonavoglia quotes actress Anne Archer in her book as saying"It is only through the personal stories of women who have had abortions that we will come to understand what the human experience is." Feministing: Jessica Valenti writes that it's “kind of sad that we're in such bad shape that another petition is needed so many years later” after the first petition in 1972 in the debut issue of Ms. Salon.com's Broadsheet came to Ms.' defense when AOL News misleading referred to the “We Had Abortions” petition as naming women who had abortions, though in fact the women who signed the petition named themselves, and many wanted to tell their stories. Daily Kos diarist Rogneid urged readers to sign the Ms. Petition, saying, “Let our signatures be our voice and our hope that we can keep abortion safe and legal.” Reproductive Rights Blog wrote that it's astounding “how many people feel like they're all alone in the abortion thing. I repeat constantly that almost 1/2 of American women will have an abortion at some point in their lives.”

CHILD CARE CRUNCH IN THE US

2006-10-08T13:15:00.000+10:00

Bush Dismantles Child Care By Ruth Rosen, TomPaine.com. Posted October 5, 2006. America's child care crunch is more dire than ever, thanks to Bush's gutting of government programs that assist working families. What kind of society have we become? Before members of Congress departed for recess, they gave President George W. Bush -- hardly known for his wisdom or compassion -- the right to define what constitutes torture and to suspend the constitutional right of habeas corpus. But our elected representatives couldn't find time to pass the Labor, Health and Human Service appropriations bill which, among things, funds child care. The "Child Care Crisis" -- the absence of anyone to care for America's children, elderly and disabled -- has turned into the new millennium's version of the "Problem That Has No Name," It is the 800-pound elephant that sits in Congress, our homes and offices -- gigantic, but ignored. And, it keeps getting worse. According to a new 50-state report on child care policies just released by the National Women's Law Center, the Bush administration has successful dismantled government services for children. State funds for child care assistance have fallen for the fifth year in a row. The problem will soon become catastrophic when large numbers of single mothers bump up against their five-year life limit on welfare. The report portrays a bleak picture of our national child care deficit. Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of NWLC, says that: "The new federal welfare work requirement [passed this year] creates more demand for child care assistance without providing enough funding to meet that demand." No big surprise here. Many of us always knew that the elimination of guaranteed welfare -- replaced by Temporary Assistance to Need Families -- was designed to reduce the number of women on the welfare rolls, not to reduce poverty. The report also finds that states are failing to adequately compensate providers. Helen Blank, NWLC director of leadership and public policy, describes the consequences of paying child care workers such poor wages: Low-income children are denied critical early learning experiences. Parents find it difficult to access the child care they need to work. And providers, who are often low-income women themselves, face earning less or going out of business. Poor working mothers face other barriers as well. Two-thirds of the states have raised the income eligibility and copayments for child care and 18 states have long waiting lists. All of these barriers to adequate childcare make it extremely difficult for women to work, feel confident that their children are safe and to get off welfare. But do either Democrats or Republicans think this constitutes a threat to the national security of our society? No. In fact, more than three decades after Congress passed -- and President Richard Nixon vetoed -- the 1971 comprehensive child care legislation, child care has all but dropped off the national political agenda. And, with each passing year, the child care crisis only grows larger, burdening the lives of working mothers. But it never reaches our nation's political agenda. Anti-feminists naturally blame the women's movement for abandoning their children for the impossible ideal of "having it all." But it was journalists and popular writers, not women's rights activists, who created the myth of the "superwoman." Feminists of the 1960s and 1970s always knew that women couldn't do it alone. In fact, they insisted that men share the housework and child rearing and that government and business should provide and subsidize child care. Single mothers naturally suffer the most from the child care crisis, but even with two parents, there is not much time for family life. Parents become overwhelmed, children feel cranky, workers quietly seethe and gulp antacids and sleeping pills, and volunteering in community life gradually vanishes. Overworked American families, whose time spent at work has increased three extra weeks between 1986 and 1997, suffer from what sociologist Arlie Hochschild has called a "time bind." But both social conservatives and the Religious Right, who glorify "family values," refuse to support any national effort to help working families regain a sense of stability and balance. Conventional wisdom also reinforces the widespread myth that child care is not a problem, that American women have gained equality, entered a new post-feminist era and that it's time for disgruntled feminists "to move on." This is hardly new. Ever since 1970, the mainstream media has been pronouncing the death of feminism and reporting that women have returned home to care for their children. The early 21st century version of this journalistic narrative describes -- with a certain celebratory tone -- how elite, wealthy and predominantly white women are "choosing" to ditch their educational credentials and "opting out" in favor of home and children. What's missing in all these stories is the fact that the vast majority of ordinary middle-class and low-income working mothers have to work. They have no choice. Such stories also obscure the reality that an absence of quality, affordable, and accessible child care and flexible working hours greatly contributes to a woman's so-called "choice" to stay at home. Poverty -- like the child care crisis -- remains invisible to mainstream America and largely outside the national political discourse. Yet, in 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that poverty rates in U.S. had increased for the fourth straight year and had jumped from 31.6 million people in 2000 to 37 million, including 13 million children. Rather expanding Head Start, the government issues vouchers that all too often result in inadequate child care. And many mothers who can't get subsidized child care assistance reluctantly leave their children with irresponsible relatives or babysitters they have good reasons not to trust. While the media celebrates the highly-educated career woman who quits her job to become a stay-at-home mom, the government requires single mothers on TANF to leave their children somewhere, anywhere, so that they can fulfill their requirement to work and get off welfare. Congress's indifference to child care, however, is merely one example of this country's failure to address poverty and the growing child care crisis. It's easier to sacrifice cherished civil liberties in the name of fighting "the war on terror" than to address the need for superior education, universal health coverage, climate change, subsidized child care, mass transit, and affordable housing, all of which constitutes real national security for families and their children. Look into the mirror. What are your values? Is your sense of security only tied to a national security program that has resulted in two failed wars and an unprecedented assault on our democratic rights? That is the question that all Americans should ask themselves before they cast their votes in November. Ruth Rosen is a historian and journalist who teaches public policy at UC Berkeley. She is a senior fellow at the Longview Institute. A new edition of her most recent book, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America (Penguin, 2001), will be published with an updated epilogue in 2007.

WOMEN'S PROGRESS 'GLACIAL'

2006-09-03T22:12:00.000+10:00

The latest census of women in senior positions in management and on corporate boards by the Equal Oppportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) makes for depressing reading. According to the report, women hold only 8.7 per cent of board seats in Australia's largest 200 companies, and only 12 per cent of executive manager positions, ie "direct reports" to the Chief Executive of those companies. The director of the Agency, Anna McPhee says: "Incremental advancement is slow - glacial even..." There has been NO increase in the percentage of organisations that have at least one female board member, and there is only a small increase in the number of women on boards. Almost half of Australia's largest companies do not have a single woman director. Compared with other developed countries, Australia's record is abysmal. And it's not just in the corporate sector. We have an embarassing record generally when it comes to women in leadership positions. The Forbes annual list of the world's 100 most powerful women did not include a single Australian. Two New Zealanders made the cut - Prime Minister Helen Clark and Therese Gattung, chief of Telecom New Zealand - but not a single sheila. Not a good look, girls. We are going to have to get stroppy!

EOWA BACK IN BUSINESS

2006-09-03T22:04:00.000+10:00

Contrary to what I wrote in the Janine Haines Lecture on August 23 (see Speeches on my website), the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency IS still conducting a census of women in management and women on boards. The Agency conducted these censuses in 2002 and 2003 but had not done once since. But just last week (31 August) EOWA released its latest census. The results are not encouraging - see next posting for a report on the outcomes - but it is very good to know that the position of women in leadership roles in the corporate world is again being monitored by the federal government.

NEW STATS ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

2006-08-27T13:11:00.000+10:00

Women’s Services Network (WESNET Inc) MEDIA RELEASE 24 August 2006 New Survey Again Proves that Women Bear the Brunt of Domestic Violence The results of the Personal Safety Survey undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and released last week supported existing evidence that Australian women are continuing to bear high levels of violence in their intimate relationships. According to WESNET, the national peak body for domestic and family violence services across Australia, this is completely unacceptable. “When is the Australian Government going to finally treat violence against women as the serious social issue it is?” asked Pauline Woodbridge, National Chairperson of WESNET. The survey shows that for women aged 45 years and over, the proportion that experienced physical violence in the 12 months prior to the survey increased significantly in 2005 to 25% from 15% in 1996. Of those women who were physically assaulted, 38% were physically assaulted by their current or previous male partner. “These statistics are alarming” said Ms Woodbridge. More women who experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator reported it to the police in 2005 (36%) compared to 19% in 1996. According to Ms Woodbridge, “this could reflect higher levels of reporting, or higher levels of assaults, or both”. 31% of all females in Australia who were physically assaulted in the last 12 months were assaulted by a current or previous male partner, whilst 4.4% of all males physically assaulted in the last 12 months were assaulted by a current or previous female partner. Women are seven times more likely to be assaulted by a partner or former partner than a male assault victim is. “There is an increasing proportion of people in the community who are saying that women are as violent as men”, said Julie Oberin, Victorian WESNET representative, “despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Propaganda from men's rights groups and the federally funded Men's Line depicting women in a negative light fuel these misconceptions. This survey again dispels that myth and clearly shows that domestic violence is fundamentally and unequivocally about male violence against women. Believing myths such as that are unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst. Men in our society have to take responsibility for the endemic levels of violence against women. Women have a right to be free from harm, torture and murder by men they know” she said. “There is no doubt that Australian men experience high levels of violence, and this too is completely unacceptable”, said Ms Oberin, “however, what is clear in the evidence is that the violence men experience is overwhelmingly from other men. What is wrong with a society where both men and women are at high and increased risk from violence from violent and abusive men?” she asked. For media comment please contact: Pauline Woodbridge, National Chairperson, 0419 739 774 Julie Oberin, Victorian Representative, 0419 539 346

HIGH COST OF CHILDCARE

2006-07-20T10:58:00.000+10:00

I received the following email this week from a woman in corporate life who points to the unfairness of the government's approach to salary sacrificing the cost of child care: There hasn't been much in the press lately about the cost of childcare, so I was hoping you may be able to raise this issue again. I have three children: one in primary school, aged 7 years, and the other two (4 years old and 5 months old) attending an excellent long day care centre.The combined cost of before school care, long day care fees and an after school nanny is running at $53,000 annually. I don't begrudge the actual cost of care, but I am horrified that I cannot salary sacrifice these costs, when I can salary sacrifice a car. I understand that employer-sponsored childcare places can enable salary sacrifice, however, I choose to have my children in a not-for-profit KU Childcare Centre, so even if my company were to provide employer-sponsored childcare, I wouldn't move my children away from the centre they are currently attending. Fortunately I earn a very decent salary, but even so, these costs combined with the effort involved in getting three children out of the house by 7am in the morning, then bathed and fed by 7.30 in the evening, makes us wonder what on earth we are doing. We are currently contemplating having one parent retire from the workforce. The political party that promises to allow salary sacrifice for childcare costs at ALL centres, without the link through an employer, is the political party that will get the family vote. Kind regards Sharon Clark

PASSING THE IMMIGRATION TEST

2006-05-03T19:38:00.000+10:00

My article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald has attracted a great deal of email feedback. Clearly this is one of those issues that touches on some basic conceptions that are fundamental to what we think of as being Australian. While the idea of testing prospective immigrants for cultural suitability has plenty of supporters, the whole concept is riddled with contradictions and wracked with practical improbabilities. How we as a country deal with this will be a test for us all. If you haven't already, read the article and post your comments.

THE BUSINESS OF CHILD CARE

2006-05-03T19:09:00.000+10:00

IBISWorld is a 1970s market research company that has evolved into an online business data provider offering "powerful and comprehensive information on every industry, top 2000 companies and the business environment". It's probably no surprise then to see that in their latest newsletter they are focusing on the Australian child care industry. It's interesting to see a business perspective on this most essential of human services just at a time when the vulnerabilities of the traditional community-based providers are being exposed by private operators and the federal government is becoming aware of the vote value of child care issues. If you're interested in how child care is evolving in Australia, the IBISWorld newsletter is definitely worth a look.

HAPPY INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY!

2006-03-08T14:05:00.000+11:00

Today, March 8, is International Women's Day, designated by the United Nations and celebrated by women around the world. I wish all readers of this blog a very happy International Women's Day.

THANK YOU TO (MOST OF) THE WOMEN OF THE SENATE

2006-02-10T18:17:00.000+11:00

In 1996 the women members of the Australian Parliament sat on their hands and looked the other way when the Senator Brian Harradine inspired bill to ban the drug RU486 was passed into law. Ten years later - what a different, and welcome, outcome. The women of the Senate yesterday banded together (all but three of them) to vote in favour of the lifting of the Minister for Health's veto over the importation of the drug. This is not to belittle or under-appreciate the efforts of the male Senators who also voted to lift the ban. But the cross party effort of the women in the Senate was what we put women in parliament for - to protect the interests of women. They delivered yesterday in spades. Of the 28 women Senators, 25 voted to lift the ban. Thank you to all those who voted in favour. Let's hope their sisters (and brothers) in the House of Representatives follow suit when they have their opportunity to vote on the issue next week.

Reproductive Choice update

2005-12-20T13:00:00.000+11:00

Welcome to your regular Reproductive Choice Australia update. We need your help Although Christmas is fast approaching there is a few things that we can do to help in the campaign to give Australians greater reproductive choice. 1. Sign the petition to Get Politics Out of Medicine and forward the link to at least five friends so we can reach the target of 10 000 signatures. Sign the petition here www.getup.org.au/campaign/GetPoliticsOutOfMedicine 2. Make a submission to the Inquiry into the bill that will rightly return the right of approval for RU486 to the Therapeutic Goods Association not the Health Minister. An update on the inquiry and details on how to make a submission are below. 3. Be ready to respond to direct requests from Reproductive Choice Australia to help lobby our parliamentarians to vote yes to this important piece of legislation in the New Year. RU486 Legislation Update As you are probably aware a cross-party group of Senators (Fiona Nash (Nat), Judith Troeth (Lib), Lyn Allison (Dem) and Claire Moore (ALP)) introduced a Bill entitled Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 into parliament last week. This Bill aims to remove the power the Health Minister currently possesses to approve or ban RU486 and return this power to the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA). This reverses the 1996 amendments to the Therapeutic Good Act where RU486 was placed into a special group of drugs named 'restricted goods' because of its abortifacient properties. RU486 is the only drug that is subject to this need for Ministerial approval before it can even be evaluated, registered, listed or imported by the TGA. The Senate’s Community Affairs Legislation Committee is holding an Inquiry into the legislation. It is heavily stacked by anti-choice Senators. The voting membership of the committee is as follows: Gary Humphries (Lib) Guy Barnett (Lib) Steven Fielding (Family First) Helen Polley (ALP) Judith Adams (Lib) Claire Moore (ALP) The public has been invited to make submissions to the inquiry. The closing date for submissions is Monday 16 January 2006. Three hearing dates have been set: Thursday 15 December 2005, Friday 3 and Monday 6 February 2006. The inquiry is set to table its report in parliament on Wednesday 8 February. Details of the inquiry and how to make submissions can be found here http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/ru486/index.htm. RCA will distribute further information and ideas for the content of submissions early next week. Media Conscience vote on abortion drug December 6, 2005 - 7:21PM SMH Government senators will be allowed a conscience vote on the banned abortion drug RU486 next year, with Prime Minister John Howard today outlining how the coalition would approach the issue. Mr Howard promised Government backbenchers last week that they would have a free vote on the issue after Health Minister Tony Abbott ruled out overturning an effective ban on the drug. The Australian Democrats had planned to force a vote on the issue before the end of this year by moving an amendment to the next Therapeutic Goods Administration bill. But Mr Howard told a meeting of Government MPs and senators this morning that the amendment would be debated next year, along with a private member's bill to be put up by an as yet unnamed government senator. "The Government's proposal is to have both the TGA amendment and the private member's bill debated together in the new year, and the two votes taken almost simultaneously," a party room spokesman said. The private member's bill would be voted on first, with a conscience vote for all Government senators. If it was carried, the amendment would be unnecessary and would be withdrawn. If the private member's bill failed, a vote would be taken on the amendment - with senators expected to take the Government line. Mr Abbott, a devout Catholic, wants the ban on RU486 maintained, but last week said he was happy to see the matter determined by a conscience vote. Health department advice has warned RU486 could be dangerous for women in rural and remote areas because its use requires strict medical supervision and access to emergency care. Under Australian laws initiated by retired pro-life senator Brian Harradine in 1996, women wanting access to RU486 have to apply through their doctor for approval from Mr Abbott. The Democrats amendment would give the approval power to medical experts at the Therapeutic Goods Authority instead of Mr Abbott. Democrats Leader Lyn Allison said the move represented a win for her party and all Australian women. She said the Democrats had been campaigning for a change to the law for some time. "I think we have much to be proud of - the Democrats and women in this place in getting to this point," Senator Allison said. "This is a very big win for women. I think it could have been dealt with this week, we're dealing with a lot of legislation which is not time-imperative and most of it unnecessary anyway. "But I am pleased that the prime minister has seen fit to agree on a timeframe for doing it. "February's better than later in the year and certainly better than nothing." She said she was confident that the private member's bill would succeed. "I am confident, it's my understanding that even those members and senators who may have an objection to abortion will see this as an appropriate choice for women," Senator Allison said. "And so I expect we will secure their vote and the numbers will see the passage of these changes." But she was unsure as to which senator would sponsor the private member's bill. Senator Allison hopes the move will bring about further reforms relating to abortion, including the removal of abortion from the criminal code. She specifically called on Victorian Premier Steve Bracks to listen to his own health minister and ensure terminations were no longer a crime in his state. "There are still some campaigns to be fought and won on this issue for women to make sure that that choice is available to them in all sorts of circumstances, so I am not saying this is the end of the struggle," Senator Allison said. She also wants to see buffer zones around clinics conducting abortions and a guarantee that emergency contraception is available at every pharmacy. "I think there are a whole range of measures that we can now start looking at that will improve the choices for women," Senator Allison said. "It's just the beginning." AAP Abortion drug sparks Abbott-ousting bill December 8, 2005 - 10:34AM SMH A bill to strip the health minister of his power over the use of abortion pill RU486 has been introduced to the Senate. Nationals senator Fiona Nash introduced the private members bill on behalf of herself, Liberal senator Judith Troeth, Democrats senator Lyn Allison, and Labor senator Claire Moore. Prime Minister John Howard last week said he would allow a conscience vote on whether the pill should be banned. The bill would amend the Therapeutic Goods Act to hand responsibility for approval of use of the drug to the Therapeutic Goods Administration rather than the Health Minister, Tony Abbott. Mr Abbott, a devout Catholic, wants the ban on RU486 maintained, but last week said he was happy to see the matter determined by a conscience vote. Health department advice has warned RU486 could be dangerous for women in rural and remote areas because its use requires strict medical supervision and access to emergency care. Under Australian laws initiated by retired pro-life senator Brian Harradine in 1996, women wanting access to RU486 have to apply through their doctor for approval from Mr Abbott. Family First senator Steve Fielding tried to force a vote on the introduction of the bill, but had no support for the move, and failed. His vote against the introduction of the laws to the upper house was recorded. Senator Nash said the TGA had the know-how to make decisions about the drug and should do so. "The Therapeutic Goods Administration has the knowledge and expertise to conduct the evaluation of RU486 for quality, safety and efficacy," she said in a speech accompanying the bill. "That is why the TGA has been entrusted to evaluate more than 50,000 therapeutic goods that have already come before it." The bill has been referred to a Senate committee to be examined, with a report due to go to the Senate in February. Nationals Senate leader Ron Boswell told parliament he had not opposed the motion to introduce the bill because he wanted to see the issue thoroughly debated. But Senator Boswell said he and other senators, including Barnaby Joyce, Julian McGauran and Guy Barnett among others, would oppose the bill when it came to a final vote. "I don't think there has ever been a bill that was opposed on its first reading and its introduction," Senator Boswell said. "Even the (introduction of the) IR bill was not opposed by the Labor Party. "The best chance that we have of defeating this bill is to take it to a committee and have the dangers of RU486 exposed." Senator Boswell said he did not want people to think Family First was the only party to oppose the bill. Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said he welcomed Senator Boswell's comments. "As a person who supports this legislation I back up what Senator Boswell said," he said. "There are people here who will oppose it but who have followed proper parliamentary process in allowing the bill to come into the parliament, whereupon due parliamentary process can take care of it. "I think it was a little naive of Senator Fielding to not understand that but he is a new senator in the place." © 2005 AAP Senator denies committee stacked with abortion drug critics ABC News 13 December 2005 The head of the Senate committee inquiring into the abortion drug RU-486 denies it is weighted against moves to make the medication freely available in Australia. The inquiry is examining a private member's bill seeking to have control of the drug returned to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The Senate's community affairs legislation committee will advertise for public submissions tomorrow and hold the first of three planned hearing days on Thursday. Its chairman, Senator Gary Humphries, says the scope of the inquiry is yet to be determined but he has rejected suggestions that the committee is stacked with critics of the bill. "I don't understand that criticism frankly because the committee has been in existence for a long time," he said. "It was formed at the beginning of this Parliament before anyone could possibly have imagined that the issue of RU-486 would be referred to it. "So no, the committee hasn't been stacked, far from it." Senator Humphries has admitted it will be difficult to keep the inquiry from turning into one on abortion. "At one level this legislation is quite straightforward and very simple, but of course it's already very controversial," he said. Dr Leslie Cannold from Reproductive Choice Australia is concerned the inquiry will run widely out of control. "The worry is that they're going to turn it into some kind of referendum on abortion," Dr Cannold said. "I think we should worry about it because the intent in doing that is for them to delay the vote." That is a concern shared by Democrats leader Lyn Allison, who is one of the sponsors of the bill. "My guess is it'll be ... it'll be a broad inquiry rather than a narrow one," she said. But Nationals Senator Fiona Nash, who is another sponsor of the private members bill, is confident that will not happen. "I have no reason to doubt it'll be a very balanced approach," she said. The inquiry is due to report back in February. Conscience vote on abortion pill delayed SMH December 10, 2005 - 4:59PM Pro-choice advocates remain unconvinced no deal was done between Family First and the government to delay an upcoming conscience vote on the abortion pill RU486. Reproductive Choice Australia, a coalition of more than 20 organisations, on Saturday called on Prime Minister John Howard to make good on his promise the RU486 vote will take place in the first sitting week of parliament next year. Family First Senator Fielding stunned observers by giving the government the extra vote it needed on Friday to implement its ban on compulsory student union fees. Despite at the time not being able to recall whether RU486 had been discussed on Friday with Mr Howard, Senator Fielding has denied a deal was done to secure his vote on the voluntary student unionism (VSU) bill. The anti-abortion senator on Saturday clarified he was "in and out" of committee meetings during the day and confirmed one of them was on the RU486. However, he said he had not discussed legislation relating to the drug with the prime minister or his staff. Under current laws initiated by retired pro-life senator Brian Harradine in 1996, women wanting access to RU486 have to apply through their doctor for approval from Health Minister Tony Abbott. NSW Nationals senator Fiona Nash last week introduced a private member's bill which would hand responsibility for approval of use of the drug to the Therapeutic Goods Administration rather than Mr Abbott. Mr Howard last week said he would allow a conscience vote on whether the pill should be banned. The government on Thursday referred the bill to a Senate inquiry, which will report back to parliament by early February. But pro-choice advocates suspect a backroom deal between the government and pro-life Family First after the Senate Community Affairs Committee extended its inquiry from one day in Canberra, to three around the country. Reproductive Choice Australia spokeswoman Cait Calcutt said the government had dealt away a matter of critical importance to Australian women for the vote of an independent senator. "We're outraged and astounded that the government would dare trade women's health away in yet another sneaky backroom deal," Ms Calcutt said. The coalition includes Sexual Health & Family Planning Australia, Children by Choice, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Australian Women's Health Network, the Women's Electoral Lobby, and all state based pro-choice coalitions. Health department advice has warned RU486 could be dangerous for women in rural and remote areas because its use requires strict medical supervision and access to emergency care. Ministers to shape abortion-curbing plan December 12, 2005 - 5:44AM SMH Federal ministers will examine a pregnancy support package aimed at curbing the abortion rate. The package, approved in principle by cabinet, will make pregnancy counselling a Medicare item and create a help hotline for women. Ministers will meet on Monday to discuss details of the support package, Fairfax newspapers said. Health Minister Tony Abbott proposed the measures in a bid to reduce abortions. But Mr Abbott's attempt to lift the ban on the abortion drug RU486 has backfired. Parliament next year will consider a private members Bill over the abortion drug and remove ministerial control. Abortion drug inquiry chief to stay focused on topic ABC 15/12/05 A Senate inquiry into the availability of the abortion drug RU-486 in Australia has started its first public hearings. The Senate committee is considering whether approval for the drug should rest with the Health Minister or the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Inquiry chairman ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries says he will be taking an open mind into the hearings, despite opposing the drug. Senator Humphries says he will make sure the inquiry remains focused on its main task without becoming a wider debate on abortion. "It's impossible for there not to be discussion I think, before the committee, about broader issues to deal with the use of the drug and abortion in Australia," he said. "But it is important to keep bringing the inquiry back to the point that this is an issue of who makes the decision, rather than what should the decision that they make be." The committee has been hearing evidence from the Australian Medical Association (AMA) that says health risks associated with RU-486 are acceptably low and decisions on its availability should be made by the TGA. "The need for evaluation of products has to be done at arm's length from the Government," AMA president Mukesh Haikerwal said. Family First Senator Steve Fielding has referred to the controversial drug RU-486 as a "do-it yourself" abortion. Senator Fielding has questioned the AMA and representatives from the Health Department about what guidelines would be provided to women to deal with foetuses aborted at home. "We heard this morning from the AMA that people could be able to take the drug at home, which is effectively do-it-yourself abortions," he said. Nationals Senator Ron Boswell is worried about the drug's use in rural and remote areas. "The worst possible way to have an abortion," he said. The AMA says the drug should not be used in areas where follow-up care is not available. Abbott Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott says it would be inappropriate to allow Health Department public servants to decide if RU-486 should be publicly available. A conscience vote on the issue will take place in the New Year. Mr Abbott says politicians are democratically accountable and therefore better placed to make moral judgments than public servants. "They have a better idea of the scientific arguments but in the end it's not just the science that should determine our decision on these matters," he said. "There's a whole range of ethical and social considerations which are important here." Aussies fly overseas to get banned abortion pill By Erin O'Dwyer December 4, 2005 Australian women are travelling to New Zealand to access the banned medical abortion drug RU486 to avoid invasive surgical terminations. Leading obstetrician Caroline de Costa, from James Cook University's Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, said several pregnant women had travelled to Auckland and Wellington for medical abortions and one woman had travelled to Britain. Professor de Costa, who last week briefed federal MPs in Canberra on the issue, said the drug had been safely used by thousands of women in the US, Britain and much of Western Europe, as well as hundreds of women in New Zealand. She described the current situation as "ridiculous", and compared it with Irish women being forced to travel to Britain to access legal abortions. "If it were not available here and if it became more widely available in New Zealand, we would see more Australian women travelling to New Zealand to take advantage of the drug," Professor de Costa said. The drug, also known as mifepristone, has been banned in Australia since 1996. The ban was the result of a deal between the Government and pro-life senator Brian Harradine that enabled the Health Minister to override the Therapeutic Goods Administration approval of the drug's importation. A push by the Australian Democrats to overturn the ban has prompted Prime Minister John Howard to allow backbenchers a conscience vote on the issue, expected in February. The drug was legalised in New Zealand in 2001 and is now available in about 10 hospitals and abortion clinics. It is routinely used for mid- to late-term terminations. About 18,000 abortions are performed in New Zealand each year, with about 15 per cent opting for medical terminations. The cost is about $1000 at private clinics but procedures are free at public hospitals and associated clinics. The procedure uses tablets to end an early pregnancy. Treatment requires two visits, two days apart. A surgical termination at a private clinic in Sydney costs from $320 and takes about half a day. WHERE IT'S SOLD Medical termination using RU486 is available to women in: Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Britain, Canada, China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, India, Israel, Latvia, Moldova, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tunisia, Ukraine, United States, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Source: The Sun-Herald

RU-486

2005-10-14T21:29:00.000+10:00

Thanks to the efforts of key women MPs and Senators from all sides of politics, such as Sharman Stone, Julia Gillard, Tanya Plibersek, Jan McLucas, Claire Moore, Lyn Allison and Natasha Stott Despoja (+ many others), there is a very real possibility that the restrictions on access for women to RU-486 could be overturned. The Prime Minister has today stated that the Cabinet will consider proposals to grant women access to the drug. NOW IS THE TIME TO GET ACTIVE!! Please help by emailing the Prime Minister expressing your support for a change in the law. http://www.pm.gov.au/email.cfm

BULK-BILLING FOR ABORTION UNDER THREAT

2005-08-12T12:29:00.000+10:00

The Health Insurance Commission (which administers Medicare) has been threaning some abortion providers with prosecution if they continue their decades-long practice of bulk-billing Medicare for the termination as well as charging an upfront fee for counselling. As a result, claim abortion counsellors, a number of the providers in NSW will no longer bulk-bill therefore forcing women to find the $520 needed for a first trimester abortion, which they can then claim on Medicare and get around $300 back. For some women this is a huge financial burden, for many it requires weeks of saving -which pushes them into the second trimester; for others it is simply impossible which means they are forced to have unplanned for and often unwanted babies. This is being done by stealth under the stewardship of a Health Minister who is on the record as saying he wants to reduce the number of abortions in Australia. Read the Press Release.

DISAPPEARING CHILD-CARE REBATE

2005-08-12T12:14:00.000+10:00

Remember John Howard's hasty election promise last October to match Labor by providing a 30 per cent rebate on the cost of child-care? Howard did not want to do it but felt compelled to compete with Latham (hard to believe these days but the former ALP Leader gave Howard some serious opposition). Ever since he got safely back to Kirribilli he has been back-tracking at a million miles an hour. First, they reneged on the initial promise by putting a cap on it - you can only claim $4,000 a year in child-care expenses, parents were told. (Originally, there was no limit). Then the introduction was delayed by a year, so that parents can't claim back any of the huge and soaring costs of child-care until the financial year AFTER the expenses were paid. (Ever heard of cash flow problems, John?) Next, in a further tightening of the scheme, parents who use preschool for child-care were told they won't be eligible at all. Now the government is whingeing that all those people it has forced off welfare into the workforce think they are eligble for it -- causing the costs of the scheme to blow out. Have you ever seen such a mean-spirited approach to a policy that was originally meant to help parents defray the huge cost of childcare. We know that some parents in Sydney and Melbourne are paying more than $100 a day and get NO help at present from the government. The way the rebate policy is heading, that won't be available to them for years - if ever. But if you are a stay at home Mum, with no child-care expenses, and a millionaire husband then the government is more than willing to give you a handout. Currently 76 families with the sole earner bringing in $1million plus are getting $64 a week in Family Benefit Part B. This is more than double the number of millionaires who received the benefit last year. Great to see the already wealthy getting some government provided pin-money while two-earner families struggle with higher rates of tax AND no help with their child-care. Way to go, John.

FAMILY FRIENDLY CEOS - NOT

2005-08-12T12:01:00.000+10:00

Good to see the Australian Financial Review on Wednesday interviewing the heads of all the banks about their work/life balance. ("Bankers check their balance" by Stewart Oldfield AFR 10 August, 2005) The answers were not very encouraging since none of the bank CEOs managed to make it home for dinner with their families. But at least they acknowledged that they should. Unlike new Telstra boss Sol Trujillo who is reported in the AFR on 11 August, 2005 as being prone to call meetings at 7pm that often go on until after midnight, expects his executives to come in for meetings on Saturday mornings and thinks nothing of calling people at 4 in the morning if he needs something. Way to go, Sol.

ABORTION UPDATE

2005-08-11T15:52:00.000+10:00

1. NSW Court Case could weaken abortion laws - see my article in the Sydney Morning Herald read here 2.In February this year I posted an item "What Ron Wants to Know" setting out the questions on abortion put on the Senate Notice paper by Senator Ron Boswell. I have been able to obtain the answers to those questions and have posted them here for the record. See Boswell answers.

WOMEN RULE IN THE NT

2005-07-21T16:41:00.000+10:00

Once the blokiest part of Australia, the Northern Territory is now leading the way with women leading in politics. For the first time anywhere in Australia, the head of the government and the leader of the opposition are both women. Claire Martin led the Labor Party to a landslide victory (her second) in last month's territory elections. She vanquished the Country Liberal Party including the leader of the oppsition who lost his seat. The CLP has now come back smaller (only 4 seats in parliament) but with a fresh new face. Their new leader is 39 year old Jodeen Carney, a lawyer who is the member for the Alice Springs seat of Araluen. Her deputy is Fay Miller. Jodeen is a strong feminist, has worked in the area of violence against women and last year defied her party to vote in favour of gay law reform.

FOOTBALLERS AGANST SEXUAL ASSAULT

2005-07-21T16:35:00.000+10:00

It's good to see that this year even schoolkid footballers are taking place in the day against sexual assault. You will remember from around this time last year, the Rugby League encouraged its players to wear a purple armband during one days' matches as a sign of their opposition to sexual assault against women. This followed the notorious Bulldogs case against a young woman in Coffs Harbour. This year the initiative is being broadened to include a variety of teams. See the following email from Sydney's Leichhardt Council inviting local teams to take part in the intiative this coming weekend: Leichhardt Council has recently been aproached by (Football Fans Against Sexual Assault (FFASA) to support the Weekend of Champions: Purple Armband Campaign. Leichhardt Council invites your teams to participate in Leichhardt Council's Weekend of Champions: Purple Armband Campaign during the weekend of 23-24 July 2005. Leichhardt Council hosts this event in support of on-line Australia-wide campaign Football Fans Against Sexual Assault. The Weekend of Champions: Purple Armband Campaign aims to see all levels of sport play a role in challenging the attitudes and behaviours that contribute to sexual assault and gender violence in sport and the broader community. In football, armbands are a symbol of grief and respect, while purple is the colour for women's rights. By donning a purple armband, the wearer symbolically: • States their respect for women; • Acknowledges the grief of sexual assault victim/survivors; and • Commits to a stand against gender violence. Last year, over 100 sporting teams Australia-wide donned the FFASA campaign symbol of purple armbands in on-field stances against sexual assault and gender violence. These teams included the Brisbane Broncos, Manly Sea Eagles, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Sydney Roosters, St George Dragons and New Zealand Warriors, and grassroots teams spanning AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Netball. Sexual assault and gender violence is an issue that affects more people than we realise. By wearing the purple armbands, your teams will play an important leadership role on this society-wide problem. Council will sponsor the event by providing purple ribbons. All that is asked of your clubs, is that on the weekend of July 23-24, the games are conducted while players are wearing the purple armbands. Please let me know by return email if you will be supporting this event, and how many players you will require armbands for. Please feel free to invite your opposition to support the event also. We will provide ribbons for them if you wish. Council will be promoting the campaign in the local media and we welcome pre match or action photographs of your teams wearing the purple arm bands. Additionally, all participating clubs will be noted on the FFASA website (www.ffasa.org)

ABOUT BLOODY TIME!

2005-06-07T16:30:00.000+10:00

First the vote, now this. How will the women of Kuwait cope! In the space of a month they have been "granted" the right to vote and run for public office, and now two women have been appointed by the Government to the country's municipal council. A week ago, in Kuwait's last male-only vote, 16 men were elected to the council. Now their numbers are amplified by the two women. According to a report in the Australian today, around 200,000 women are expected to register to vote and already five women have said they will contest the next elections in February. It's better late than never, and Kuwait is one of the few Arab states that even have elections, so this small step is to be welcomed.

EVEN MORE WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT

2005-06-04T18:09:00.000+10:00

Janet Wilson from the Parliamentary Library in Canberra reports that following recent state elections and movements in the federal parliament there are now 158 women in parliaments around Australia, representing 32.2 per cent of the total parliamentarians - a net increase on 7 since her last report. See Janet's excellent research atWomen and Politics table

WORK OR BE DAMNED

2005-06-04T18:05:00.000+10:00

The Prime Minister has told single parents (most of whom who have custody of their children are women) that they will lose their Newstart alloancements of $432 a fortnight if they fail to take jobs merely because they can't find childcare. The Daily Telegraph in Sydney reported on June 3 that the Prime Minister has confirmed that from July 1 next year when the new workforce obligations regime comes into effect, lack of childcare will not be a valid excuse for turning down a job. Is the government going to increase the number of child care places? Is it going to perhaps reserve places for single parents needing to take jobs under the new regime? Will pigs fly?

US DEMOCRATS RENOUNCE WOMEN

2005-06-04T17:59:00.000+10:00

The US Democratic Party is becoming depressingly like the Australian Labor Party when it comes to women's issues: don't want to know and won't do anything. The party's leader Howard Dean last week chose to walk away from abortion, rather than defend women's right to choose as this comes under increasing threat from the Bush Administration. The party is said to have suffered a loss of women's votes in the November 2004 Presidential elections as a result of John Kerry's insistence on wooing the "whie male warrior vote". The following article from the US alternative news service, Alternet, makes the case: The Democrats Woman Problem

TONY ABBOTT CAN'T COUNT

2005-06-04T17:52:00.000+10:00

Federal health minister Ton Abbott said last weekend, "The fact that there are 100,000 abortions a year is a tragedy". Where did this figure come from? Statistics released by his own department in answers to questions on the Senate notice paper from Senator Ron Boswell just a few weeks ago show there were 91,358 abortions performed in Australia in 2003/04. The Health Department cautions that this figure includes procedures related to miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies and so is somewhat overstated. But of course it sounds better to "round up" the figures to a nice, easy to remember and easy to denounce, one hundred thousand. The Healther Minister can't read, can't count -- or can't tell the truth. Don't for a moment think that Mr Abbott has given up on his campaign to make it more difficult, or even impossible, for Australian women to exercise their right to legal, safe and affordable abortion.

WATCH THE ABORTION DEBATE REIGNITE

2005-04-19T15:34:00.000+10:00

Remember the questions on abortion put on the Senate Notice paper by Senator Ron Boswell (see below "What Ron Wants to Know"). The answers from the federal Department of Health are being published tomorrow, reports the ABC website so watch the issue of abortion hit the front pages again. NOTE: I will be overseas for the next five weeks and unable to post any messages but don't let that stop you all talking to each other.

WOMEN IN POLITICS

2005-04-11T17:03:00.000+10:00

See the latest table showing the gender composition of Australia's parliaments. The table compiled and regularly updated by Janet Wilson in the Parliamentary Library in Canberra is a very useful guide to checking out the number of women in legislatures around the country. Interestingly, it is places like the Northern Territory and Queensland that have the highest percentage of women (so does the ACT but that's less surprising) leaving so-called progressive states such as New South Wales lingering way behind.

UNEQUAL DIVORCE OUTCOMES

2005-04-11T16:54:00.000+10:00

We have always known that women tend to do worse, financially speaking, after divorce and this has now been confirmed by a report, The Financial Impact of Divorce in Australia released on April 5 by AMP and the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling. The report found that divorce hurts both parties financially but that the impact is worse for women: in the first year after divorce men's incomes dropped by 8 per cent, or $4100 a year, while women's fell by 42 per cent, or $21,400. Women most often kept the family home but struggled to find the cash flow to meet daily expenses. The report also found that 50 per cent of divorced men found new partners, compared with 35 per cent of divorced women.

GIRL TRAIN

2005-04-11T16:49:00.000+10:00

Tokyo has introduced its first women-only carriage to enable women commuters to ride in peace without being groped and bumped against by fellow travellers. Reporting this, the Australian newspaper said:"The women-only cars were introduced on a route with a high incidence of groping during the morning rush hour." India has already introduced police stations staffed excusively by female officers so that women complaining of sexual assault can get their complaints treated seriously. Both creative and practical responses to problems endured by too many women. Any such solutions needed here in Australia?

FRANK, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN

2005-04-11T16:30:00.000+10:00

It appeared in the Australian on April 1 so maybe it was meant to be a joke, but Frank Devine's rantings on the subject of Tony Abbott seemed to be more deranged than delightful. Frank was upset at what he called the "dark side" of the "rubbishing" of Tony Abbott's revelations almost two months earlier that he had "found" his long lost son. Not surprisingly, Frank's attacks were all on women columnists. He listed the Daily Telegraph's Anita Quigley as an example of "the flowering, some of it poisonous, of anti-Catholicism". But Frank reserved his best bile for yours truly, stating that "the dark side darkens when we turn to the attack on Abbott by anti-abortionists...Anne Summers was first and perhaps most venehmently off the launching pad..." blah blah blah Think what you like, Frank. Thousands disagree. Read Frank's mad article here

JP MORGAN BUYS INTO ABC

2005-03-28T15:01:00.000+10:00

The rise and rise of ABC Learning Centres just goes on and on. You will recall previous postings about this company, Australia's largest private childcare operator which continues to report record profits and which recently was lucky enough to secure the services of former federal childcare minister, Larry Anthony, as one of its director. Now comes the news that JP Morgan Chase & Co has increased its holding and as of last Thursday owns 6.05 per cent of the company. Yes it is that JP Morgan, the investment bank created by the American plutocrat who famously said, "If I can't take it with me, I'm not going". He's long gone, but the money remains and some of it is now finding its way into Aussie childcare. As previously reported, it's a pretty good investment with Australian taxpayer funds of one million dollars A DAY going into the company, thus pretty much guaranteeing its cash flow. JP Morgan and related entities gave their address as Columbus, Ohio (that's in the USA) when they notified the Australian Stock Exchange last Thursday (just as the market closed for Easter) that it was increasing its stake from the previous holding of 12,416,848 shares to 15,089,188 shares. JP Morgan started buying into ABC just two months ago, with an initial purchase of 200,00, and has been steadily increasing its stake to the current high levels. That's quite a steep rate of acquisition in just two months. Still there's a way to go before the Americans rival the holding of company founder Eddy Grove and his wife Le Nev Ann Grove who each own 18,495,000 shares. Shares closed at $5.45 on Thursday. JP Morgan obviously knows a good investment when it sees one even if Aussie childcare is a bit outside its usual sights.

CONDOLEEZA RICE'S BURDEN

2005-03-28T14:28:00.000+10:00

In her autobiography Madam Secretary, former US Secretary of State (and the first woman to hold the position) Madeleine Albright, addressed the question of official sexism towards the US top diplomat. "I am often asked," she wrote, "whether I was condescended to by men as I travelled around the world to Arab countries and other places with highly traditional cultures. I replied, 'No, because when I arrived somewhere, it was in a large plane with "United States of America" emblazoned on the side.' Foreign officials respected that. I had more problems with some of the men in my own government." (Macmillan, 2003 p. xii) The big plane does not seem to be doing it for Condoleeza Rice, current US Secretary of State who is not just female but young,single, childless and African American. She has been given a terrible time during her recent trip to China and North Asia. Maybe to her face the officials are polite and show respect but the bloggers are relentless in portraying her in ways that are both sexist and racist. A report in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald describes some of the reaction and implies that, in a country where web sites are shut down by the government for the most minor exercises of free speech, that these comments are being officially tolerated, perhaps even encouraged. She is being called ugly, a monkey and so on, but my Chinese-speaking friends tell me the actual postings are far worse than anything quoted. The "c" word is frequently used, often with extraordinarily vituperative adjectives attached. You don't have to like or agree with Condy's politics to admire her achievements (concert pianist apart from the high-level foreign policy expertise) or to deplore attacks of this kind.

WOMEN'S RESPONSE TO TONY ABBOTT

2005-03-28T14:10:00.000+10:00

It has not been necessary for me to comment on the startling news that Health Minister Tony Abbott's long-lost son has been revealed not to be "his". Everyone else is having their two-bobs worth so I have just been watching from the sidelines. Two things are worth commenting on about the response. First, has been the vilification of Kathy Donnolly, Abbott's former girlfriend and mother of the young man who is not Tony's. Talkback radio, representing the raw face of the worst of this country, has deemed her a scarlet woman, a slut and a lot worse. All because she had a one-night stand 28 years ago, where the contraceptives failed, and as a result had a baby. While the child was deemed to be Abbott's she was seen as victim, a relinquishing mother forced to give up her baby by a "callow" man who would not marry her. Suddenly, because of a burst condom (presumably) the same woman is being slagged off at. Why? What has changed? Second interesting fact has been the sex differenced in reactions. This has been especially evident in Sydney's Daily Telegraph, the newspaper you will remember first published the revalations about Abbott being reunited with his long-lost son. This time around there has not been a peep out of Piers Ackermann, the man who wrote the initial story and put the positive pro-Abbott spin on it that proved so helpful to the Health Minister as he dealt with the resultant media frenzy. Instead, there has been a plaintive column from the paper's chief political correspondent Malcolm Farr wondering why women have been so hostile to Tony Abbott. In order to find out, you had only to read Anita Quigley, also on the paper's opinion page. Quigley got it in one. Well worth the read.

EX-MINISTER JOINS CHILD CARE GRAVY TRAIN

2005-03-20T15:11:00.000+11:00

Larry Anthony who until last year's federal election was the federal government minister in charge of childcare has just been appointed to the board of the country's largest private operator of childcare centres, ABC Learning. ABC is one of those fabulously successful companies that just keeps growing and growing. In February this year, it reported a 60 per cent increase in interim net profit for the previous half-year. That meant a profit of $15.5 million for the six months. ABC is predicting an even greater bonanza for the current fiscal year of $77.5 million. ABC controls more than 20 per cent of Australia's long day care market and is growing fast, mainly by acquiring other centres or chains. But the best thing about the business is that its cash flow is guaranteed - by the federal government. The Childcare Subsidy, which is the federal government's only cash assistance to parents for the cost of childcare, is paid direct to the operators. This takes a lot of the risk out of the business. According to a report in the Australian on March 17, 2005 the company expects to receive about $350 million this year in direct federal government subsidies. This, according to a report the same day on crikey.com.au by Stephen Mayne, makes it the most highly subsidised company in Australia, guaranteed a million dollars a day in taxpayers funds. Not bad. And with the former Minister on board to advise on those little technical details - not to mention, continue to grease the political wheels to ensure the system does not change in any way that might disadvantage the company - what could go wrong? Larry gets paid $40,000 a year as a board member. He would have made more if he'd joined Janet Albrechtson on that other ABC Board (which pays directors $50,000) but it will be worth keeping an eye on what stock and options package the former Minister has beebn able to negotiate for himself. These have to be reported to the Australian Stock Exchange. I will keep my eye on ABC's reports and let you know.

RURAL TEEN PREGNANCY EPIDEMIC

2005-03-20T15:03:00.000+11:00

Today's Sunday Telegraph reports that in some areas of rural New South Wales there is an epidemic of teenage pregnancies. The story is based on the findings of the NSW Health's Mothers and Babies Report which finds that in some rural areas the teenage birth rate is 6 per cent, compared with 1.6 per cent in more densely populated areas. One reason, it seems, is the lack of sex education in the country but also the unwillingness of some country pharmacists to stock condoms or the morning-after pill. The article quotes the 19 year old mother of a young girl who says she would not have become pregnant if she had not moved to the Huner valley town of Merriwa from the Central Coast where she lived previously and where was able to buy contraceptives. The Merriwa pharmacist told the Sunday Telegraph that he would not stock condoms for "personal ethical reasons".

WHY ARE THERE SO FEW WOMEN COLUMNISTS?

2005-03-20T14:52:00.000+11:00

Most newspaper columnists are men. This is true in Australia and elsewhere. Recently New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd examined why this is. read here In the US the debate is now swirling around whether it's the numbers of women that matter or what they have to say. Do we want more right-wing women? (The Margaret Thatcher argument?) Dowd has been attacked for just concentrating on numbers rather than content as, for instance, in the eline daily journal alternet. read here Here in Australia the Sydney Morning Herald's Miranda Devine has also weighed into the debate, claiming that she received more criticisms from women than she does from men. read what Miranda said My own experience is that whenever I write a newspaper column (which is not very often these days) I receive far more criticisms from men than from women. I still cannot believe some of the things some men feel able to say from behind the anonymity of an email address. The level of vituperation and use of obscenities is quite startling. Maybe if we had more women columnists, these men would just get used to it.

WOMEN AND THE WA ELECTION

2005-03-17T16:56:00.000+11:00

From Emily's List comes this analysis of the outcome for women candidates in the Western Australian election, including the great result for Carol Martin, who is the first Indigenous woman to be re-elected to any parliament in Australia, and who increased her majority. The terrific result for women was not, however, reflected in the nWomen and the Western Australian elections (news from EMILY’s List) EMILY's List members will be pleased to note that all EMILY's List MPs were returned to their seats with increased margins. EMILY's List supported MPs who won their seats were: Carol Martin MP Jaye Radisich MP Dianne Guise MP Judy Edwards MP Sheila McHale MP Sue Ellery MLC Louise Pratt MLC New EMILY's List MPs are: Shelley Archer MLC Sally Talbot MLC Carol Martin increased her margin and has made history once again as the first Indigenous woman to serve more than one term. Jaye Radisich dramatically increased her margin to 4 per cent from just 0.1 per cent. Dianne Guise has won each and every booth in her electorate! EMILY's List members donated over $15,000 to the election. Congratulations everyone! *** WA Cabinet *** EMILY's List has followed up on these excellent election results with a media statement about the lack of new women appointed to the Gallop Cabinet: "EMILY's List Co-Convenor Hon. Joan Kirner today expressed her disappointment at the failure of the Gallop Government to appoint more women to the new Cabinet. Ms Kirner said: "With five positions available and a number of talented women ready to take on leadership roles, it is incredible that there has not been an increase in either numbers or percentage terms. Indeed, there are now less women in percentage terms in the new Gallop Cabinet than before with women making up just 29 per cent of the Cabinet as opposed to 35 per cent prior to the last election". "The Gallop Government now has more women in its Caucus than ever before," Ms Kirner said, "the Cabinet should reflect this if the Government wants to be seen as a Government for the future". EMILY's List was pleased to have assisted in the election of two new Upper House MPs at the state election and to have helped re-elect seven EMILY's List MPs to Parliament, including the first Indigenous woman to serve more than one term in office, Carol Martin MP (Kimberley)."

THE CRISIS IN MASCULINITY REDUX

2005-03-17T14:40:00.000+11:00

Remember last year when the government had to threaten to change our sex discrimination laws so that men-only scholarships could be provided to entice boys to study to become primary school teachers? We had a "crisis in masculinity" both the Prime Minister and then Opposition Leader Mark Latham asserted, because primary school teachers were predominantly women and this was bad for boys. Where were their role models etc etc? So what are we to make of the news that only six of the 12 male-only scholarships offered by the Catholic Education Office have been taken up? Boys don't want to teach primary school it seems. Even when offered preferential treatment. So what are we going to do about this ongoing crisis in masculinity? Maybe we could increase the pay and the status of primary school teachers? That might bring in the boys - and be just rewards for the thousands of women who keep the system going. Just a thought.

CAN HILLARY BE US PRESIDENT?

2005-03-17T14:37:00.000+11:00

Today's New York Times postulates that Hillary Clinton, Democrat Senator from New York and former First Lady, is positioning herself with the US heartland via her advocacy of religion and her shift of position on abortion. Read the articleread here

HOWARD'S SECRET ABORTION AGENDA

2005-02-11T16:30:00.000+11:00

Today's Age newspaper carried this very illuminating article on what the Prime Minister is really up to with encouraging the debate on abortion that last year he said he did not want. To read the article click here

WHAT RON WANTS TO KNOW

2005-02-11T13:00:00.000+11:00

Late last month, National Party Senator Ron Boswell placed a lengthy series of questions on the Senate notice paper relating to the incidence and circumstances concerning abortion in Australia. The questions are directed to Guess Who? Tony Abbott, the Health Minister and co-conspirator in the disgraceful effort to make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions. It is not pushing the envelope too far to suggest that Tony might even have had a hand in drafting Ron's questions. As it is, they constitute a loaded little document. Many of these questions contain assumptions about abortion and related matters, and are not just seeking factual information. Often, questions on the notice paper languish and lapse for want of an answer, e.g. questions relating to the Prime Minister's wine cellar Kirribilli which have been ignored for years. It will be interesting to see if Ron's questions are answered. My guess is they will be, and pronto. To read Ron's questions click here

ABORTION FIRESTORM REIGNITES

2005-02-03T13:20:00.000+11:00

Late last year I predicted that Prime Minister John Howard would find it very difficult to put the abortion genie back into the bottle and, unfortunately, the debate has now re-ignited and is roaring out of control. As soon Howard's back was turned - he was overseas, first in Davos and then visiting Singapore and Acheh - his ministers and backbenchers went to work to get the issue back onto the front line. Tony Abbott, the Health Minister, is of course the driving force behind the push back into the headlines but he is being assisted by deputy prime minister John Anderson and National Party Senator Ron Boswell. There is growing support from across the political divide for a "debate" on the subject of late-term abortions. Earlier this week in Sydney a meeting of anti-abortion MPs from all the parties plotted how to get more "information" to fuel the issue. This meeting was sent a message of support by Tony Abbott. So much for him having supposedly been disciplined by the Prime Minister for raising the issue last year. It is now time for Howard to sack Abbott for his utterly unacceptable use of his portfolio to push his religious convictions. Anything less means that Howard is an implicit accomplice in this push to deny Australian women the right to choose when and if they have babies. The reaction of the new Labor Leader, Kim Beazley, was predictably disappointing and an example of his total inability to understand the politics of a situation. Instead of drawing attention to Abbott's defying of the Prime Minister's wishes - while he was visiting tsunami victims, no less - Big Kim merely reminded us all that he is opposed to abortion too. Kim, your views are not the issue here. As a party leader it is your responsibility to know and represent the views of the majority of your members and they, like the population in general, are utterly opposed to any restrictions on women's right to choose. It is salutary that it is only men who are pushing this, only men who are worried about so-called late-term abortions, only men who want "more information". Fortunately, the majority of women MPs who have spoken out have denounced this push back to the dark ages. We need more of them to do so - and as many men as possible too. So encourage the women MPs in their battle. Let them know they have your support. You can email all women MPs from the links page of this website.

JULIA GILLARD STAKES HER CLAIM

2005-01-26T14:30:00.000+11:00

Personally, I am sorry that Julia Gillard is not running for the ALP leadership on Friday. It would have make the contest more credible for there to be an election, and a contested ballot is a good test of the relative strengths of the opposing candidates. Nevertheless, Julia has performed stunningly, not putting a foot wrong in staking out her claim for a leadership position the next time around. She has been a cool and credible media performer and has clearly impressed enough of her colleagues to have reportedly secured around one-third of the Caucus votes had she run. And of course her potential candidacy has flushed out all the troglodytes in the ALP and the media who claim that a "single and childless" person (they mean woman) cannot ever be elected leader of a major Australian political party since such a person would not be electable by the people and thus could never be Prime Minister. Gillard has also been criticised for her kitchen being too clean and tidy! Talk about can't win territory. If her kitchen had been messy, she would have been criticised for being a bad housekeeper (and thus unable to run the country). If she had kids, she'd probably be told to go home and look after them until they grew up, by which time her political moment may well have passed. It is good to get all this stuff out in the open before she becomes a serious contender in the future. I wonder if the Australian electorate is as backward and sexist as many of her colleagues seem to be. I suspect the electorate is more tolerant and more interested in a candidate's competence, ideas and leadership skills than in her marital or maternal status. It is something to explore before Gillard has her next tilt at a leadership position.

A TALE OF TWO CHILDCARE SYSTEMS

2005-01-26T13:53:00.000+11:00

It was the best of times, it was the worse of times (for childcare)... depending whether you live in Australia or in Britain. In Australia, childcare fees are set to rise steeply following the highly deserved pay increase for childcare workers. This increase needs to be compensated for by a rise in the Childcare Benefit, the federal government's sole form of financial assistance towards the cost of childcare, but so far at least there has been no indication that such an increase is even being considered. Worse, the government has reneged on its election promise of a 30 per cent childcare rebate on the out-of-pocket costs of childcare (ie the gap between the Childcare Benefit and the actual cost of a childcare place). Just days before Christmas, when they no doubt hoped everyone was too busy shopping and partying to notice, the government announced two major modifications to the promise. Together they will have the effect of reducing the value of the rebate. First, the rebate can only be claimed as part of your tax in the next financial year. Compare this with the 30 per cent private health insurance benefit which can be received int he form of reduced health insurance fees during the year. Parents will have to wait more than a year to get their money. Most parents will have to wait 18 months to see a cent. Second, the rebate is to be caped at $4,000 a year this making it pretty useless for parents in Sydney and Melbourne who have to pay up to $350 a week for a chilcare place. Neither of these restrictions were disclosed when the policy was announced in the last week of the election campaign. Mean and sneaky. In Britain, by contrast, childcare and associated family policies have been elevated to a high priority by the Blair government and measures announced that seem positively luxurious by Australian standards. Under a ten year strategy for childcare announced last December by Chancellor Gordon Brown, parents can claim 80 per cent of the cost of childcare on their tax via a tax credit system (in Australia only 30 per cent can be claimed and, as we saw above, there is a ceiling imposed even on this); this credit can be claimed by parents with an annual joint income of up to $143,818 (in Australia the maximum Childcare Benefit starts to cut out at an annual joint income of $32,485), and the credit can be claimed on weekly fees of up to $426.50 for one child or $731.27 for two or more children (in Australia the maximum amount of government assistance is $140.50, regardless of the cost of the place). If that all sounds like paradise, consider this: the British government has promised that out-of-school hours care will be provided to all children aged 3 to 14 every weekday from 8am to 6pm for 48 weeks a year. This will be done by the simple device of extending the hours that schools are open. Parents will have to pay a fee for this extra care but it saves them having to transport children from school to care, something many Australian parents would welcome. Finally, the British government has extended its national paid maternity leave scheme from 6 months to 9 months, starting in 2007. The government has announced an "eventual" goal of 12 months paid maternity leave. Fathers will be entitled to take any of this leave if the mother decides to go back to work during the leave period. (Australia of course, along with the US, is the only country in the world not to have a national paid maternity leave scheme).

HILLARY CLINTON SOFTENS HER POSITION ON ABORTION?

2005-01-26T13:45:00.000+11:00

US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has delivered a controversial speech to women's organisations in New York in which she appears to soften her position on abortion. Her remarks came on the anniversary of the Roe v Wade US Supreme Court decision that legalises abortion in the US, and at a time when there is concern that the composition of the US Supreme Court could change, leading to a reversal of the Roe v Wade decision. click here

RIP OSW

2005-01-21T15:30:00.000+11:00

You will recall that after the last election John Howard announced that the Office of the Status of Women (OSW) was to be downgraded and moved from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Department of Family and Community Services. Not only has this happened, but the name of the office has been changed, it has been shunted from its previous office in the Parliamentary Triangle to Tuggeranong on the outskirts of Canberra and, worst of all, its functions have been totally changed. The Office for Women, as it is now called, says "our work is founded on the goal of mainstreaming women's issues". You will remember the last time the government "mainstreamed" a women's function was when it abolished the Women's Bureau back in 1997. Since then, there has been total silence on women's work issues from the Howard government: no reports, no stats and no action to prevent the ever increasing decline in women's full-time participation rate. To see what passes for women's policy under the federal government, go to the OFW web site.click here

DUTCH MP RETURNS TO PARLIAMENT AFTER VAN GOGH MURDER

2005-01-21T14:18:00.000+11:00

The woman MP who had to go into hiding after the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam late last year has returned to public life, albeit under heavy security. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was the writer of the screenplay about the ill-treatment of women in Islam that apparently led to Van Gogh's murder. (A letter to her was left pinned to his body). Now she is back. click here

TAX BREAKS FOR COFFEE BUT NOT FOR CHILDCARE

2004-12-16T18:58:00.000+11:00

Wonderful how our tax system can be exploited by the already rich to buy their cafe lattes and lunchtime sandwiches but parents struggling to pay for childcare get only minimal assistance. Crikey.com.au today broke the story of the Cafe Card that is issued to employees of Macquarie Bank, colloquially known as the Millionaires Factory because of the fabulously high salaries enjoyed by their employees. It seems they get other benefits also. As explained to staff, the Card enables them to purchase coffee and food from certain cafes with pre-tax income. For a person earning $100,000 a year, that represents a benefit of more than $800 a year. To see how it works, click here. Many parents no doubt wish they could purchase childcare with pre-tax income

CAN HOWARD PUT ABORTION GENIE BACK IN BOTTLE?

2004-11-15T19:50:00.000+11:00

The Prime Minister apparently wishes it would all go away. It might be a bit late for that. He should have stomped on Tony Abbott before the election when the Minister for Health first stared his campaign against legal abortion. But the PM has evidently been able to call in some powerful allies to help him, as this item from today's crickey.com.au illustrates: 3. The Australian's abortion backflip Is this proof that The Australian takes its riding instructions from John Howard? Before the PM intervened here's what the paper had to say about the abortion debate: "If Health Minister Tony Abbott and his parliamentary secretary Christopher Pyne want to engage in a debate about abortion, they have every right to do so without being shouted down by hysterics." - Australian editorial November 3 Now Howard says the abortion debate is bad - guess what? "It is therefore a pity that debate on what might be achieved has been hijacked by the sideshow over abortion." - Australian editorial November 15 If a politician had done this, The Australian would have called it a backflip. Back to Top

Abortion debate out of control?

2004-11-15T09:12:00.000+11:00

With federal parliament meeting today for the first time since the federal election, MPs will no doubt be talking about abortion, a subject that several of them have pre-emptorily placed on the political agenda - why? who needed this? - and seem determined to force a fight onto us. In the following excerpt from a speech I gave last week, I look at the political firestorm that has gathered around this subject: o The federal health Minister Tony Abbott has asked “Do we really think 100,000 abortions a year is a good thing?” and has claimed that women are being “railroaded” into abortion by parents, husbands, boyfriends and “the culture of convenience” o The deputy prime minister, John Anderson, has called for a debate “to re-examine our understanding of medical science and the law”. o The South Australian Liberal MP Christopher Pyne has asserted that in one wing of hospitals 24 week old fetuses are being aborted while in another wing, 23 week old babies are being nurtured in neo-natal units; he has called for a total ban of abortions beyond 21 weeks and questioned the need for terminations at all o Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz has said he opposes public subsidies for terminations via Medicare o Queensland Senator-elect, and the man who gave John Howard control of the Senate, Barney Joyce said he wanted an end to public funding of abortion as the price for his vote to privatize Telstra o The Governor-General, Michael Jeffery, has called for the number of abortions to be reduced o Only one woman, Veterans Affairs Minister De-Anne Kelly has joined in the call for a limit on abortions; at the weekend she said “The death of 100,000 Australians is a national loss and tragedy” and argued that the loss of “these potential young Australians” was a problem for our ageing society. If you don’t think this cacophony adds up to a determined political assault on women’s reproductive freedom then you are being very naïve. This is the breeding creed at full roar. And this is unprecedented. We have never had a federal health Minister crusade against a legal medical procedure in this fashion before. We have never had a deputy Prime Minister and the Governor General jump in as well. And are they being curbed? Hardly. A few women Liberal MPs have stood up for women’s right to choose, which is necessary and about time, but where are the male political heavyweights. I don’t find it all reassuring that the treasurer has jumped in merely to remind people that abortion law is a state matter. Coming from the man who on the night he announced a $3,000 “Baby bribe” as a key part of his budget told women to go home and “have one for the father, one for the mother and one for the country”, I hardly think this constitutes a rebuttal of what his colleagues are up to. Until yesterday the prime minister had been conspicuously silent, but his intervention was ambiguous and it is by no means clear that he is trying to prevent this further assault on women’s reproductive rights. And let’s be clear as to what it is about. Tony Abbott and his cronies want to force women back to the bad old days of safe abortion being a prerogative of the rich. They don’t of course have the power to change the law and ban abortion but they do have the power to make abortion expensive by removing the Medicare rebate. They also have a broader and more ambitious agenda. In saying they want to have a debate, they are in fact trying to get the states to reexamine their laws. They say they want to have “a debate” on the issue; in reality they want to generate anxiety and disgust by concentrating on the issue of late-term abortions rather than on the reality of abortion in Australia today. Tony Abbott says there are 100,000 abortions performed in Australia today. I challenge him to back up this figure, and I will be very surprised if he can since there are no national statistics kept. He has made this number up. It is a clear, easy to remember round number that has in a few short weeks become fact. The reality is that Medicare rebates were paid for 73,191 abortions in the twelve months to June 2004. The further reality is that the number of terminations in this country is declining. That is certainly the case in South Australia, the only state that publishes data on pregnancy terminations. According to a newspaper report, in 2003 there were 5214 abortions performed, down from 5463 in 2002 and 5572 in 2001. The same statistics show that less than one per cent of these terminations took place after 20 weeks. It would be useful to know more about who is having abortions, and why, just as it would be useful to have reliable national statistics on violence against women, but we do not live in an age that values such information. from what we do know from South Australia it seems that the majority of abortions are sought by women who are married or in a relationship, many of whom already have children. It may be that women are terminating pregnancies simply because they can’t afford to have another baby. If we were serious about helping women to have babies, we would be looking at a far wider policy palette than just the Medicare rebate. We would be looking at the range of issues I have already raised: access to full-time employment, equal pay, child care, maternity leave. Instead of advocating a breeding creed, we would be listening to what women themselves say they want: lives that encompass a range of things – marriage, children, careers, travel and some time for themselves. But in pursuing these, they are paying a high price – emotional, financial and even physical – because our society has become one that penalizes women who want to be equal. I regard this new threat to women’s equality as extremely serious. Women everywhere, and especially our women MPs, and the men who agree with them have to stand up and be counted on this one. If we don’t stop them now, the notion of women’s equality will become a fleeting historical memory, something that occurred for a few halcyon years in the late 20th century but which was overturned by ruthless zealots in the 21st. It is a history I hope never to read, let alone live through, but all the signs are there. When I named my book The End of Equality I meant it to be a wake-up call. I assumed, perhaps naively, that if I showed things as they really were, not as we imagined them to be or hoped they were, that change would follow. Instead the reverse seems to be happening. I hope we can head it off before the end of equality become a permanent reality and women are relegated back to where too many men obviously believe we belong.

FINAL ELECTION SUMMARY

2004-10-08T07:36:00.000+10:00

On the eve of the election, here is my personal summary of the major policies of the major parties as they impact on women. For more details of each policy, please visit the websites of the Liberal Party or the ALP.

Women's Policies: each party has a women's policy, in itself a welcome change from past elections.

Australian Women. Opportunities for Life, the Liberal policy, was released on October 7 and is mainly a compilation of other policies such as family payments, childcare etc. One new announcement: a commitment to conduct a Personal Safety Survey in 2006, supposedly to update the Women's Safety Survey of 1996 which revealed for the first time the shocking incidence of domestic violence in marriages and de facto relationships. However, the surveys will not be strictly comparable since the "personal safety" survey is not the same as a "women's safety". It will concentrate more on crime, and will include men. We still will not have statistics that would give us a ten-year-on comparable snapshot. What a shame. The Liberal policy says nothing about the Sex Discrimination Act.

Choice and Opportunity for Women: Labor's better deal for Women was released on July 19 and contains a comprehensive list of small po9licy promises across a range of areas (employment and economic security, protection from violence, better work and family balance and improving the status of women. A key promise is to ensure the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act are "widely publicised and enforced". The 1996 women's safety survey will be repeared.

National Paid Maternity Leave Scheme

Both parties have reneged on this, leaving Australia along with the United States as the only two developed countries that do not offer working women paid leave when they have a baby. The result is that it is generally less well off women who suffer because women in high-paying jobs are usually in a better position to negotiate leave for themselves. Women in the public sector are guaranted leave. The failure of both parties to recognise this is a shame. Instead, both parties have opted for what I call...

The Baby Bribe

Both parties are offering women $3,000 to have a baby, with each offering to increase the payment in coming years. The good thing about this approach is that it is not tied to the employment status of the mother, and is thus far preferable to the discredited and anti-employed women Baby Bonus of the Howard government. Nor is it mean tested. But it falls far short of a 14 weeks paid maternity leace scheme.

Family Payments

There are clear differences in what is on offer here. The Liberal Party policy continues its approach of rewarding stay-at-home mothers with a family payment (FBTB) which is not tested on the income of the primary earner. This payment will increase by $300 if the government is returned and the income cutoff point for the secondary earner will increase, making it slightly easier for working women who leave their jobs to have a baby to qualify. However, the presumption of the policy, despite the change in rhetoric, is that mothers should stay at home and they are financially rewarded for doing so. Dual-income families continue to suffer punitive average marginal tax rates because of the low cutt off for income testing, so that mothers in employment will still pay as much as 50 cents in the dollar on their incomes. The government is offering an annual $600 payment which is largely to offset the family payments debt that as many as 1.4 million families have accumulated due to underreporting of income or Centrelink's treatment of income changes.

Labor's policy has the presumption that mothers will return to work (in fact, it will virtually force single mothers into employment under its Work not Welfare approach) and it will abolish the iniquitous FBTB by combing the two policies, raising the income threshold very considerably so as to "dewelfarise" these payments and avoid the high effective marginal tax rates and the debt trap. Most families will receive tax increases under this combined family payments/tax policy.

Child Care

Again there are clear differences in approach.

The Liberals haved promised a 30 per cent tax rebate on the cost of child care to all recipients of the Child Care Benefit. This will help relieve the high cost of child care (but may put pressur eon child care fees). It is an astonishing policy from the government that abolished Labor's 30 per tax rebate in 1998.

Labor has adopted an increase in places approach but has done nothing directly to address affordability (which is disappointing, given their commitment to do so). It has offered one day a week of free education-related child care to 3 and 4 years olds which is most welcome, but which does not address the huge problem parents of 1 and 2 year olds have in finding places and affording care. Labor will also restore operational subsidies to community based centres. My favourite part of Labor's policy is its $35 million commitment to protect homeless children. This is essentially a plan to help children living in women's refuges: "Funding will be available to purchase school tutoring and school materials, music lessons, enable participation in arts, crafts and sporting activities or specialist health services". These are among the most disadvantaged and traumatised kids on our society (as are their mothers) and any party that can think to help them in this way is a party with a heart. Great stuff!

Come tomorrow night, we'll know which of the above policies are going to govern our lives for the next three years.

DUELLING CHILD CARE POLICIES

2004-09-29T16:51:00.000+10:00

Childcare is finally a major election issue with the major parties taking very different approaches to what is undoubtedly a crisis in supply and affordability. The major element of the government's policy is a 30 per cent rebate on the cost of care. Read the policy here. The ALP will increase the number of places, offer a day's free care per week and is restoring the operational subsidies to community care centres. Read the policy here.

WOMEN SWING TO LABOR?

2004-09-21T15:21:00.000+10:00

It was reported at the weekend (Sun-Herald 19 September) that there has been a 7 per cent swing to Labor amongst women in NSW. The Taverner poll shows that 40 per cent of women are now going to vote Labor, still fewer than will vote for the Coalition, but enough to give Labor a big boost. (In 1993, the last time Labor won, a majority of women voted for the Coalition but enough women swung towards Labor, then the government, in order for it to win. In other words, women make the difference between winning and losing.) According to the poll, the issues that influenced women's vote were (in order): greater spending on education; more bulk billing GPs; equal pay; more, cheaper childcare; and tax cuts. Fancy that! The poll also found that 38 per cent of women polled said Labor was better at representing issued affecting women, compared with 30 per cent who judged the government to be better.

LABOR'S TAX & FAMILY PLAN

2004-09-13T11:43:00.000+10:00

There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the benefits and disadvantages of Labor's tax and family package, announced last week. While there are clear benefits for mothers who want to return to the workforce, some other features of the package appear to contradict or even undermine this intent. The major feature of the package, the combining of Family Tax Benefits A and B is most welcome. It reduces the complexity of the existing family benefits scheme and it removes what had been a clear disincentive for women to return to work after having a baby. The cancelling of all family debts will also be welcomed by those families who are struggling to repay debts which often amount to several thousand dollars. The provision of a limited form of income splitting (via one income families having access to $12,000 worth of tax free income) is apparently intended to counteract any notion that Labor is opposed to stay-at-home Mums but it sets a dangerous precedent. Already, small business advocates are calling for the concept of income-splitting to be applied to more groups and to higher income levels. Also of concern is the treatment of low-income sole parents under Labor's package. Opposition Leader Mark Latham has made it clear that work is preferable to welfare - a proposition that is hard to argue with. However care needs to be given to the feasibility of some sole parents working, especially when their children are young. Many sole parents live in geographic areas where work is not available. Surely we don't want to see a continuation of the demeaning and ultimately self-respect destroying policies that currently operate under the government's "mutual obligation" scheme for sole parents, whereby in return for benefits they must work a certain number of hours a year. If paid work is not available, then "make work" is provided. It is a punitive policy, apparently intended to remind sole parents that wicked people they are, rather than apolicy that encourages sole parents back into gainful employment. There needs to be much more debate on Labor's policy, and there needs to be clarification on some of the points raised above. Let's hope these are addressed in the coming week. You can read the policy document released by Mark Latham and form your own views.

SUPERSIZE McKIDS

2004-09-10T15:56:00.000+10:00

The merging of ABC Learning Centres with Peppercorn Management Group, the other leading private sector childcare provider, has created a huge, profitable, market-leading group. ABC currently operates 327 centres but will add a further 452 from the Peppercorn group, giving it a total of 779 centres but Eddy Groves, the chief executive of ABC, told the Australian (10 September, 2004) he plans an expansion that would give the group up to 1100 centres within three years. At present, the merged group will control around 53,000 long day places - which, according to the Sydney Morning Herald (10 September, 2004) amounts to one in every five places available for the children of working parents. The Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, which represents childcare workers, says it plans to ask the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission whether the merged group would have an unfair control over the private childcare market. Mr Groves claims this will not be the case, since his $800 million company will have control of only 20 per cent of the market. However there must be concern at how Mr Groves will achieve his promised increase in profits without sacrificing the quality of care provided to children. Already, according to the SMH, each ABC centre yields an average net profit of $100,000. Mr Groves has promised to increase the profitability of of the Peppercorn centres by about 40 per cent by 2007. One good thing about the very size of the new group means that it might finally start to attract some media scrutiny other than in the business pages. A company this size engaged in such a vital industry deserves to have its operations under the spotlight.

McKIDS IN THE MONEY

2004-09-01T13:58:00.000+10:00

ABC Learning Centres, Australia's largest operator of private child-care centres, posted a record profit of $21.4 million this week. In the year ended June 30, "sales" (should that be child care places, or the amount of the federal government Child Care Rebate?) doubled to $81.6 million, and the number of centres increased to 327 from 187 a year earlier. The company's managing director, Eddy Groves, was reported by the Financial Review as saying that revenue grew faster than profits last year because the company was increasing the number of centres it built, rather than bought. The privatisation of child care in Australia is a fast growing - and very profitable - business. Yet the only place you read about it is in the business pages. It would be good to know more about the quality of care provided in these centres. Given that child care workers are paid so little, and the Child Care Rebate is income assessed and therefore limited, and these centres cannot charge huge fees and remain competitive, where do these huge profits come from?

SIX NRL TEAMS WEAR PURPLE

2004-08-30T11:31:00.001+10:00

Six teams wore purple armbands in support of sexual assault victms in matches at the weekend: the Broncos, Sea Eagles, Rabbitohs, Roosters, Dragons and Warriors. The Daily Telegraph reported this and ran a photo but unfortunately provides no link to the article on its website. No AFL teams wore the armbands. In fact, the Western Bullodgs wanted to several weeks ago but were prevented from doing so by the AFL. Read The Age article about AFL refusal.

FOOTY FANS AGAINST SEXUAL ASSAULT

2004-08-27T15:11:00.000+10:00

A group calling itself Footy Fans Against Sexual Assault (FFSA) has instigated a campaign to have NRL and AFL players wear purple armbands during matches this weekend to show their opposition to sexual assault. Several NRL teams, including the Broncos and the Rabbitohs have agreed but not one AFL team has signed on. Read their responses to this request to show solidarity against the assault of women. FW_ FFASA News_ Purple armbands_ NRL split pack_AFL no

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROMISES STRATEGY FOR MORE WOMEN ON CORPORATE BOARDS

2004-08-27T14:10:00.000+10:00

The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Kay Patterson has announced the government is going to develop a strategy that would increase the number of women on corporate boards. Read the report in the Sydney Morning Herald. Read article

GOVERNMENT PERSISTS WITH ATTEMPTS TO WATER DOWN SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT

2004-08-27T11:02:00.000+10:00

Although the issue of providing scholarships for boys in the Catholic education system has been resolved, the government refuses to abandon its campaign to amend the Sex Discrimination Act. The government re-introduced these amendments on 11 August and insists it will pursue this issue. What a way to celebrate the Act's 20th birthday (1 August, 1984 was the day the Act was proclaimed). Let's hope the election is called on Sunday and that these insidious plans are derailed - permanently. Read the Second Reading Speech and the press release from the Attorney-General and the Minister for Education. Extract from Federal Hansard 142Aug11_04MARK LATHAM OPPOSES MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE MALE ROLE MODELS FOR OUR PRIMARY SCHOOLS

EARNINGS GAP BETWEEN WOMEN AND WOMEN INCREASES TO OVER $15,000 A YEAR

2004-08-27T10:33:00.000+10:00

The latest figures from ABS show that the earnings gap between men and women for all earnings and full-time earnings continues to increase and has done since the Howard government came to power. Women earn less than men

GLADIATOR MEETS ROMPER STOMPER - from NewMatilda.com

2004-08-27T10:23:00.000+10:00

The new online magazine launched this week contains a number of interesting articles relevant to women and politics. This one, by George Megalogenis, argues that neither John Howard nor Mark Latham embody Australian men as they are today, nor reflect the increasing influence of women. Read the article

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD

2004-08-02T15:22:00.000+10:00

Read the full text of the letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by the Pope

VATICAN ATTACKS FEMINISM

2004-08-01T11:10:00.000+10:00

This is hardly news, except that this time the Vatican has couched its attack, issued in a Pastoral Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, in language that supposedly supports women's choice and which says that women should be able to combine work and family. However, the choice is circumscribed by the Church's ongoing opposition to women's choice when it comes to fertility, as the Church continues to oppose contraception and abortion, and says that women's primary role is child-bearing. Read a report of the statement in today's Sun-Herald Read my comments in today's Age

NEW DIRECTOR OF EOWA APPOINTED

2004-07-31T14:00:00.000+10:00

This is probably old news for some of you as it was announced a few weeks ago. Anna McPhee has been appointed Director of the Equal Opportunity for Women in Employment Agency. She replaces Fiona Krautil who had headed the Agency for the past five years and who took a high profile on issues such as paid maternity leave. .Prior to taking up this position, McPhee worked on the staff of several Ministers in the federal government, including Minister for Finance Nick Minchim McPhee's appointment was announced by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews on June 25. Read press release

ROD CAMERON ATTACKS LABOR'S WOMEN'S POLICY

2004-07-24T11:12:00.000+10:00

Evidently, British Prime Minister relies on difference research. And so, fortunately, does Mark Latham. Unlike former ALP pollster Rod Cameron who told the Age on Saturday that women's issues no longer exist and are irrelevant, both these Labor leaders know that women do count (and vote). Latham's women's policy released last week got a good reception from all but the old grey men of the Labor Party. Read the article. (NOTE: the Age may require you to register before it allows you to read this article. The pop-up box allows you to register now or do it later)

BRITAIN'S WOMEN AND WORK COMMISSION

2004-07-24T09:20:00.000+10:00

The British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Minister for Trade and Industry Patricia Hewitt have announced the establishment of a Women and Work Commission to report in twelve months on what the government can do to reduce the gender pay gap, currently at 40 per cent in the UK (it's 35 per cent in Australia for all average earnings) and to make the workplace fairer for women. In The End of Equality I advocated the establishment of a Royal Commission in the Equality of Women in Australia. The Australian government had ignored this call. It's a shame John Howard can't follow the example of his partner in the "Coalition of the Willing" when it comes to treating women fairly. Read the article

WOMEN'S POLICY SPEECH

2004-07-21T16:15:00.000+10:00

Read the transcript of Mark Latham's speech announcing Labor's policy on women. Nicola Roxon and Mark Latham - Women’s Policy

"CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY" - Labor's "better deal for Australian women"

2004-07-19T13:50:00.000+10:00

Just In! Labor's policy on women. The three documents released this morning are attached here. An analysis of the policy will be posted on this site in the next few days. 040719 Women Policy Launch 20041 040719 ALP Policy on Women 040719 Howard government record

SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN RISES AGAIN

2004-07-09T16:04:00.000+10:00

In 2003 more than 18,000 women reported sexual assaults to police throughout Australia. This is a 10 per cent increase over the previous year. This, sadly, is a huge increase over the 13,500 women who reported such assaults to police in 2001. As I report in The End of Equality (p. 101) this figure represented a 9 per cent rise on the previous year which, in turn, was 9 per cent higher than the year before. In other words, the rate of reporting of assault is rising. This could mean that the actual numbers are rising also. As I state in The End of Equality (p. 102), the Australian Institute of Crimonology estimates that only 15 per cent of women who experience sexual violence actually report it to police. The actual number of women sexually assaulted in 2003 could be as many as 120,000. This is truly shocking.

READ ALL ABOUT IT!

2004-07-09T13:32:00.000+10:00

Puff headlines on the front page of the Australian on July 6, 2004: "Greatest Player in the World" and "Boris Becker on the Best Legs in the Business". Each headline was accompanied by a photo of the winners of the Wimbledon championships this year. Guess which headline went with Roger Federer and which with Maria Sharapova!

WOMEN'S ISSUES RATE HIGHLY IN NEWSPOLL

2004-07-09T03:55:00.000+10:00

The last detailed newspoll, published in the Australian on 23 June, 2004 showed an interesting rise in the rating of women's issues by voters. The poll indicated that in June 2004, 46 per cent of voters (and 55 per cent of women voters) rated "women's issues" as being very important. This was a significant increase on the 38 per cent (44 per cent women) who rated these issues as being very important back in February. "Women's issues" were rated ahead of inflation, immigration, industrial relations and Aboriginal and native title issues, but behind Health & Medicare (the Number One issue), Education, National Security, Leadership, Family Issues, the Environment, Welfare and social issues, Taxation, Unemployment, Defence and Interest Rates. Interestingly, while 38 per cent of voters (34 per cent women) said Labor would handles these issues best, 23 per cent (28 per cent women) were "uncommitted". The government attracted the confidence of 28 per cent of voters (28 per cent women).

HOWARD PUTS HIS FACE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN CAMPAIGN

2004-05-26T13:52:00.000+10:00

You will recall the "No Respect No Relationship" television advertising campaign prepared by the Office of the Status of Women and due to screen prior to Christmas last year. As reported several times in the past on this page, the government canned the series because, the Prime Minister asserted at the time, it referred viewers to a website and not, as he preferred, to a 1800 number. Now he has come up with an even better solution: a personal message - bearing his photograph! - to every Australian - delivered to your very own letterbox. . This was revealed earlier this week in a Senate Estimates hearing and the details have beenr eported by Nicola Roxon, shadow Attorney-General and minister for the Status of women. See her press release... NICOLA ROXON - MEDIA RELEASE - GOVERNMENT CONFIRMS MILLIONS WASTED - 25 MAY 04.

WOMEN SOLDIERS AT ABU GHRAIB

2004-05-26T04:05:00.000+10:00

If you were horrified by the sight of women soldiers humiliating Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib you might be interested to read this view by American columnist and author Barbara Ehenreich (author of Nickled and Dimed among many other wonderful books). See "What Abu Ghraib Taught Me".

CHILDCARE COSTS AND INFLATION

2004-05-02T09:12:00.000+10:00

Australia's inflation rate for the March quarter was just 2 per cent, but not all areas of spending benefited from this. According to a report in the Australian Financial Review (29 April, 2004) childcare costs rose by 12.7 per cent. The price of flash digital televisions, on the other hand, fell by 21 per cent. Comment: No wonder women are having second thoughts about having children! It's cheaper to watch DVDs. When will the costs (and availability) of childcare receive serious attention from the federal government? Why is childcare so expensive? It's not because of the high wages of childcare workers who, on average, receive less than people who work on supermarket checkouts. It's time the whole industry was investigated.

NO RAPE CHARGES AGAINST CANTERBURY BULLDOGS

2004-05-02T07:25:00.000+10:00

After a two month investigation NSW police have said there is insufficient evidence to press charges against the six Sydney footballers who were alleged to have raped a young woman in Coffs Harbour during a pre-season break. The police were advised by the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions that the case was unlikely to succeed in court. At a press conference this week, the police in charge of the investigation stated again their view that a sexual assault had occurred. It was obvious the police were not happy that they could not proceed with charges. An exasperated Detective Chief Inspector Jason Breton, who had led the investigation, told a press conference that he and his team would not have worked 18 hours a day for ten weeks if they did not believe that a serious assault had not occurred. The young woman was found distressed and bleeding at a Coffs Harbour hotel early on the morning of February 22 and was taken to hospital by ambulance.She told police she had been vaginally, orally and anally raped by six footballers. The players denied the charges. After it was announced that the charges would not proceed, the chief executive of the Canterbury Bulldogs team claimed to the media that this was proof that "nothing happened". This claim was strenuously contested by the police who were adamant that an attack had taken place. The decision not to press charges has been a very controversial one. In Coffs Harbour, a sign saying "Charge the Dirty Dogs" was hung on an overpass over a local road. And a young woman interviewed in the street by reporters said: "If you speak to her [the victim], tell her she's a legend. Tell her Coffs chicks support her."

EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

2004-05-02T04:46:00.000+10:00

Urgent talks were convened in Parliament House, Perth last week after it was revealed that six women and a baby had been killed in the past four months in domestic violence episodes. The state's 36 women's refuges also reported an upsurge of women seeking emergency accommodation in the months since December 2003. All refuges were full to over-flowing and having to turn women and children away.. The Australian (27 April, 2004) reported that up to 500 women could be accommodated by Western Australian refuges each night but that a snapshot survey had revealed that 334 women and 509 children had been turned away from refuges during September and October. The Minister for Women's Interests, Sheila McHale, has ordered an investigation into the 26 deaths from domestic violence that occurred in the state in 2001-02. It was also reported on the same day by The Australian that last weekend in Brisbane, Jason Dalton, a former One Nation Party candidate had strangled his two baby children (aged 12 months and 13 weeks). He and his wife had separated two months earlier and she had taken our a domestic violence order against him after he had threatened to kill her. Mr Dalton had campaigned against family law reform and the child support agency. Comment: the WA inquiry is most welcome, but isn't it time we had a national inquiry? Women and children are being murdered and al we get from most politicians is sanctimonious drivel. The federal government would not even run the television advertising campaign against violence in relationships prepared by its own Office of the Status of Women. It's time to get serious and start saving lives.

WOMEN GET THE CHOP IN NSW

2004-04-22T09:11:00.000+10:00

See Sarah Maddison's excellent article in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday and Joan Bielski's reply today.

YOUNG, FEMALE AND MAYORAL

2004-04-22T04:50:00.000+10:00

Comment: It's no longer rare for women to be elected Mayors but the recent elevation of three Sydney women looks like a first because each is thirtysomething - a welcome change from the old image of the big-bellied, sixtysomething guys who used to have a lock on local government's highest office. According to the Sunday Telegraph of 18 April, 2004, last week saw the election of Alice Murphy, 30, as mayor of Leichhardt; Joanne Morris, 31, as mayor of Hurstville; and Julia Finn, 31, mayor of Parramatta. Big jobs in important areas. You go, girls!

OPPOSITION LEADER USES THE "W" WORD

2004-04-22T03:22:00.000+10:00

Comment: anyone who has followed my recent speeches will know that while I have welcomed Mark Latham's friendly approach to children, early child-hood education and family issues, I have been perturbed that he has not - to my knowledge - ever talked about women apart from in their role as mothers. One of the main contentions of my book The End of Equality is that, once again - just like the 1950s? - our politicians are trying to relegate women back to being seen as mothers and nothing else instead of acknowledging and devising policies for the multitude of roles that most women want to enjoy. Yesterday saw a change. According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald (20 April, 2004 p 2.) when Latham was asked by someone at a community group his views on abortion, he said "I support a woman's right to choice in those circumstances". Bravo Mark! Let's hope we hear more from the Opposition Leader on subjects of interest and concern to women as women. (As citizens, of course we all have a lot of interests in a lot of different subjects but these are not the subject of this Newsletter).

MEN'S GROUP SUES FEMINISTS

2004-04-22T03:05:00.000+10:00

This alarming report comes to us via friends in Canada where a men's rights group has taken legal action against an academic feminist for her report on the performance of boys in Canadian schools. It has an alarming resonance with our very own "crisis in masculinity" debate. See the following report sent to me via email from a friend: CANADIAN FATHERS GROUP SUES FEMINISTS FOR DEFAMATION I would like to inform you about a defamation lawsuit that has been lodged by the group BC fathers ( http://www.fathers.bc.ca/sow.htm ) in the Supreme Court of BC against one of my colleagues, Pierrette Bouchard, at Laval University. This is a manifestation of the backlash against feminists in Canada. Pierrette Bouchard, professor in the department of education and who holds the Chaire on women status (Chaire Claire Bonenfant sur la condition des femmes) http://www.fss.ulaval.ca/lef/chaire/index.html at Laval University, wrote last year a report for Status of Women Canada on «School Success by Gender, a catalyst for masculinist discourse» ( http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/0662882857/200303_0662882857_e.pdf ). This report attracted at lot of attention in the Canadian media (especially in the National Post). The «masculinist» (as we call them in Quebec) groups said that it was defamation, etc. etc. Now Pierrette Bouchard and the 2 students who helped her are sued in defamation by the group «BC Fathers» in BC Supreme Court. The lawyer for the group «BC Fathers» is Douglas Christie http://www.douglaschristie.com/DHC/guiding.htm#How%20to%20Deal%20with%20Attacks

ALP BABY CARE PACKAGE DISAPPOINTING

2004-04-05T11:30:00.000+10:00

Comment: The ALP has turned its back on the promise to provide working women with paid maternity leave. The Baby Care Payment, announced last week "delivers on Labor's commitment to 14 weeks paid maternity leave" according to one of the documents in the package. Yet this is not the case. The Baby Care Payment is a welfare measure, not a work-related one. It is triggered by the presence of children, not by the workforce status of the mother. It is means tested on family income at the time of the birth but it is not taxable. In both these respects the Baby Care Payment resembled the old Family Allowance payment introduced by the Fraser government back in 1976. It is more generous than anything provided by the current government and for that reason is a welcome improvement on present policy. The Baby Care Payment provides for families earning less than $85,702 to receive a payment of $3,000 spread out over 14 weeks (amounting to $428.57 a fortnight for those eligible for the full amount). The payment would rise to $4,000 a year in 2007 ($571.43 a fortnight). The proposal replaces the current inequitable Baby Bonus and the Maternity Allowance. It is a more generous and more equitable scheme than the Baby Bonus and it should be seen, and applauded, as an encouraging step in recognising the costs of having children. However it should not be mistaken for a paid maternity leave scheme. The Baby Care Payment is set at the Federal Minimum Wage, not at average weekly earnings, which would deliver a higher income during time out from the work force. The scheme does not conform to the International Labour Organisation standards for paid maternity leave schemes (which stipulates that women should receive two-thirds of the income they were getting when they stopped work to have their baby). Most countries in Europe pay between 80 and 100 per cent of the woman's wages for periods varying from 14 weeks (in Germany where women receive 100 per cent of their wages) to up to 26 weeks in France (where the woman also receives 100 per cent her wages). With Labor's decision to abandon paid maternity leave there is now no chance that Australian women will enjoy this benefit since it is clear the federal government is unwilling to embrace this reform. Australia will join the United States as the two industrialised countries with no national paid maternity leave scheme. Women deserve better.

TONY ABBOTT PROMOTES TEENAGE PREGNANCY?

2004-04-05T07:11:00.000+10:00

The Federal Health Minister is reported today (Sun-Herald 4 April, 2004) as proposing legislation that would increase the age at which parents can have access to their children's medical records from the present 14 to 16. Mr Abbott wants to do this to prevent teens from being sexually active. "A society where a large number of 15- and 16-year olds are sexually active has a problem," according to the Health Minister. "We are setting these kids up for failure in their later lives if we in any way accept this". Comment: Mr Abbott apparently figures that teenage girls will be less likely to go to their doctor for contraceptives if there is a risk of their parents knowing. Notice that it is only girls who will be affected by this. Boys can buy condoms over the counter - there is no plan to use federal parliament to curb their sexual activity. Another case of the double standard? Mr Abbott might feel that teen sex leads to failure later in life. This is a dubious proposition but what is absolutely certain is that a teenage pregnancy can spell absolute catastrophe for a young woman. If girls are not able to easily obtain contraceptives the result is not that they will stop having sex, they will simply resort to unprotected sex. The certain result will be an increase in teenage pregnancies and in STPs. Australia has been one of the most successful countries in the industrialised world in reducing the rate of teenage pregnancies from its high of 55.5 per 1000 of population in 1971. In 2001 the rate was just 17.6 per 1000 of population. (See The End of Equality p. 29) Teenage girls finding themselves pregnant are most likely to chose abortion, a potentially traumatic experience for a woman, especially if she has to try to do it without her parents' knowledge. Surely prevention is the better option. But Mr Abbott is one step ahead of us. Just a couple of weeks ago he commented that the 100,000 abortions performed in this country each year were a national tragedy. This was a chilling statement from a Federal Health Minister, the man who has portfolio responsibility for the policy of providing Medicare rebates for terminations. If Mr Abbott were to try to cut back on the rebate, many women would not be able to afford abortions. What would they do? Have unwanted babies who are at a higher risk of being subject to neglect or abuse? Resort to non-medically safe methods of ending the pregnancy? Would we see a return to the bad old days of backyard abortions, where it was not unknown for women to die at the hands of unsanitary and unscrupulous operators? Do we seriously want to go back to all that? I don't think so. So why is the Health Minister trying to stop young women having access to contraceptives? Why is he making it more likely that there will be an increase in the teenage pregnancy rate? Is this is a (not-so) secret plan to reverse Australia's declining birth rate? Is this Tony Abbott's version The Handmaid's Tale (see The End of Equality p 225) - a world where women are forced to be breeders?

NSW DEPARTMENT FOR WOMEN AXED

2004-04-03T10:41:00.000+10:00

NSW Treasurer Michael Egan announced this morning (2 April 2004) that the Department for Women would be abolished and replaced with "an Office of Women elevated to the Premier's Department." The announcement was part of the state's mini-budget and follows speculation within women's circles for the past few weeks that such moves were afoot. Comment: NSW was the only state to have a Department for Women and will now join the other states in retaining an office but not a Ministry. The Director of the Department for Women, Robyn Henderson, was removed from the job earlier this year in what perhaps should now be seen as a harbinger of what was to come. The move follows another change in ministerial arrangement affecting women, this time in Queensland where, following the recent State election, the Office of Women was removed from the Premier's department was demoted to the Local government department. Perhaps we should be asking Mark Latham what his plans are for the Office of the Status of Women? More news on this development as it unfolds.

Women's Earnings Gap Declines Even Further

2004-02-28T06:28:00.000+11:00

Women's average earnings, as a percentage of men's, has declined to 65.1 per cent, down from the 66 per cent reported in The End of Equality. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that women now earn an average of $312 a week less than men. In the three months to November 2003 the average weekly wage paid to men rose $14 to $894.60, while women's rose by only $11 to $582.80.

Congratulations to Australia's first Indigenous woman cabinet minister!

2003-12-18T11:20:00.000+11:00

Marion Scrymgour has been sworn in as Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister for the Environment in the Northern Territory government. She is one of four Indigenous women to serve in parliaments around Australia, and the first to become a Cabinet minister.

Australian women first voted in a federal election 100 years ago today.

2003-12-17T13:07:00.000+11:00

To learn more about this historic day, see press release by Nicola Roxon, shadow minister for the status of women Read Roxon press release.

Another Federal Government domestic violence funding scandal.

2003-12-17T10:01:00.000+11:00

It is reported in the Australian today (16 December, 2003) that the federal government has canned a proposed Christmas season television advertising campaign against domestic violence because government members objected to the fact that only men were shown to be the aggressors. The campaign, entitled "No respect, no relationship", was in the planning for two years by the Office of the Status of Women. It will not now be shown due to what looks like political interference by unnamed Liberal politicians on the vetting committee who, it was reported, said the behaviour depicted in the advertisements "was not really violence", and because men were portrayed as the perpetrators. Comment: It is of course well established that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence against women. The federal government's cancellation of this television advertising campaign is yet another example of its refusal to spend even its Budget allocation on domestic violence. For the past two years, the allocation has been underspent. Scandalously, the government used money earmarked for campaigns against domestic violence and sexual assault to fund its notorious anti-terrorism "fridge magnet" campaign in February 2003. For a full account of this scandal, see The End of Equality p. 93

Rape hotline moved from emergency numbers in NSW phone books

2003-12-15T12:58:00.000+11:00

It was reported in the Sun-Herald on 14 December that the rape crisis hotline number is going to be moved from its current position among the emergency numbers in the front of the phone book to further back in the Help and Health section. Comment: Is this yet another signal that women's equality is of no interest to governments around Australia. We know that the rate of sexual assault against women remains high and is probably increasing (See The End of Equality chapter five "A Sex War"). We should be making it as easy as possible for women to report such attacks, not forcing them to flick through a phone book searching for the 24 hour rape crisis hotline.