a conscience vote on all matters, page-11

Hi banjar ...

I loved your reply. It's a pet subject of mine and I wish that I was able to express myself a whole lot better.

< It is about time that we found a better system that allowed us all to have a bigger say, and accept more of the responsibility for the state of our society. >

There is a better system and it wouldn't take much changing. I have used the "conscience vote" label to maybe parallel the ever-ending "crux of the matter", as you highlighted so well, in the 1st part of your post.

Many say, "it could never happen" ....They seem to feel that the current "out of control" accountability in all levels of Govt, etc, etc, etc, is now unstoppable ...

But I can see a way ....as "slim" as it may seem!!

And it may very well be up to the women of Australia, to force a change that could go down in history as the
vote (STAND?) that made the difference ....And we CAN keep the basic system, as is ….........but with a simple difference. The allowing of a “one person one vote” to apply in both houses. A better form of “transparency” would soon be shown. Govt’s of the future would then be judged on how well they have introduced efficiencies within our system, among many other criteria, rather than how much “pork barrelling” can be done in the few months leading up to an election. I COULD GO ON, BUT WON’T.

Cast your mind back to the four women who “stood up” when it counted, when it came to the vote on RU486 … I wrote about it at the time, but received no reply whatsoever! We need to sit these same four women down on NATIONAL TV and debate as to how they could bring the nation to some real understanding ….MMmm?? (Not sure if all the links work, or, not? Grammar & spello's may be rough) ........The topic was 'half' discussed on another board. The thoughts of those quoted may very have changed since, but their argument remains. For what it's worth!!

[email protected]

Comment on : "All together now" .....Anne Summers

Hi "feedback' .......

I was wondering if this, (my message) could be passed onto Anne Summers the author of that thought provoking article this morning, "All together now" ?

Personally, I thought it was a great article. Congratulation and, keep the fire burning. I am not a writer, member of a political party, lobbyist, or, whatever, simply a worn out, retiree, sick of the unfair circumstances these days, called, Government in Australia. It can be so much better and thanks to your works, is slowly moving in what I generally feel is, a correct path.

I blog at times. I do enjoy the interaction. A chance to have a few read your thoughts and agree or, disagree. The following is part of a recent thread that takes your own passionate cause one step closer to my own 'dream'.

I introduced the topic on the board (13/02/2006) with,

" Are you "for" 86??

I then posted the thoughts of a reader, David Gothard, from that day's edition of Crikey.com. He had asked:

"I'm just a dumb voter and wouldn't know any better but cannot understand why RU486 needs to be taken out of control by qualified medicos and given to an unqualified, biased politician.

Is this a sign of control being taken by the Howard Government?

There are hidden agendas in this schemozzle. For example, the Reserve Bank sets our interest rates and hopefully controls our economy. I feel this is a vital function. Maybe this too should be taken back and given to the Treasurer on the grounds that it is too important to be left in the hands of experts. There are many other examples.

Would the Wheat Board have done better if it was controlled by a politician? At least then we would not need to have a Commission to untangle the web of deceit and sheet home the responsibility.

When are we going to get a Government that is fair dinkum and interested in the welfare of the Nation"?

Poster tps216 followed up with:

"Am I missing some post modern irony here ?

Its more a legacy of Harridine's then Abbott's - who I must say has taken the ball and ran with it in doing so dragging everyone into a debate which he knew full well he would lose.

By the way as far as I know the RBA's board members are appointed by the Treasurer. Ok, their charter stipulates that they are supposed to be independent. Well....make your own conclusions....Mr Gerard being a good case in point." - (* Footnote)

On 16/2/2006 traderone posted:

" Well it all fizzled out and its now back in the hands of the TGA. Perhaps its not all as bad as it seems. Or perhaps we should just have more conscience votes as opposed to simply towing the party line."

I myself replied with:

You wrote ....

< Or perhaps we should just have more conscience votes as opposed to simply towing the party line" >

Oh, and I agree!! The party line is now undemocratic and not the voice of the electorate. Never has been. It's simply the voice of the caucus, being just a few members of the ruling party, who happen to control the numbers. Nothing whatsoever to do with the "people of Australia's" wishes.

Dave R asks ...... (in his post elsewhere), when he headlined:

"What's this - A challenge to party politics" !

Women senators who co-sponsored the private member's bill on RU486 are now pledging to work together to bring further changes in areas relating to women.

Yesterday Parliament approved the bill, which is expected to lead to the abortion drug being available within a year.

The new legislation will strip Health Minister Tony Abbott of his right to ban RU486 and give control of the drug to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

The four senators from different parties say they will continue to work together and childcare has been nominated as area of concern.

Liberal Senator Judith Troeth also says another issue could be unbiased counselling for pregnant women.

"We need to ensure the provision of genuine objective counselling for those women with pregnancy problems in a way that does not make them feel impelled to make one choice over another," she said.

Senator Troeth says there are more issues in the reproductive health area.

"Any contraction of Medicare item numbers for the services that doctors perform in the nature of reproductive health would be something that we need to be very vigilant about," she said.

Democrats leader Lyn Allison wants improvement to childcare and sex education.

ABC Online

____________________________________

Perhaps women are a lot more "savvy" about politics than many give them credit for ?? Three cheers for Kath & Kim if they could "work" this theme into one of their programmes and create more awareness & understanding of the many obvious imbalances within this segment of our system, as it exists." I half jokingly commented to the above.

This morning (Sat, 18/02/2006) I posted & quoted your story:

" re; RU486 - "All together now" .....

"This collaboration by women for women is a real breakthrough in the way politics works. The question is, though: was it a one-off or will politics be different from now on? If it is the beginning of a new way, it will represent a truly massive change in the way our women pollies work and it has the potential to be of enormous benefit to Australian women in all sorts of ways.

If the women in Canberra get serious, they can change child care, they can make the tax system fairer for working mothers, they can achieve vast improvements in the health system. The list of what could, and needs to, be done is almost endless."

Well worth a FULL read, IMHO.

"All together now"

February 18, 2006
Page 1 of 6 | Single page

The cross-party collaboration by female MPs in support of the abortion pill leaves Anne Summers hopeful of a shift in federal politics that will benefit all women.

I FEEL a strong sense of historical justice in the fact that it has been the successful effort to reverse the ban on RU486 that has brought women parliamentarians in Canberra out of the political closet. A cross-party quartet — Senators Judith Troeth (Liberal, Victoria), Claire Moore (ALP, Queensland), Fiona Nash (Nationals, NSW) and Lyn Allison (Australian Democrats, Victoria) — joined together to sponsor a private members' bill designed to repeal the health minister's veto power over the abortion drug.

This was, Nash said in her second-reading speech on February 8, "the first time in the history of this place that four members of different parties have co-sponsored a private senators' bill".

Two things are remarkable about this unprecedented exercise of multi-partisanship: it was comprised entirely of women, and its purpose was to benefit women, in this case by expanding women's options when it comes to methods of abortion. It was, in other words, an example of exactly what, a few years ago, I had criticised women parliamentarians for failing to do: working together and working for women. Today, am I eating crow? Yes. Am I happy about having to do so? Absolutely.

This collaboration by women for women is a real breakthrough in the way politics works. The question is, though: was it a one-off or will politics be different from now on? If it is thebeginning of a new way, it will represent a truly massive change in the way our women pollies work and it has the potential to be of enormous benefit to Australian women in all sorts of ways.

If the women in Canberra get serious, they can change child care, they can make the tax system fairer for working mothers, they can achieve vast improvements in the health system. The list of what could, and needs to, be done is almost endless. Will it happen? If it does, it will truly represent a tectonic shift in the way the women in Canberra operate. It will be a vindication for those who wanted women in Parliament to be agents of change for their sex in addition to fulfilling their basic constituent obligations.

In late 2003, in my book The End of Equality, I characterised the female members of Federal Parliament as "political eunuchs". I used this harsh language to express my disappointment that, despite the massive increase in the numbers of women from all parties in Parliament, there had been no corresponding increase in their working together (or, indeed, at all) to improve policies that affect women. In fact, I argued, the massive roll-back in women's rights that has occurred during the years of the Howard Government took place while the number of women entering Parliament had soared.

FOR THE FULL 6 PAGES....

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/all-together-now/2006/02/17/1140151816800.html

And again.....

"The scale of this week's victory should not be underestimated. Only nine private members' bills have succeeded in the history of the Australian Parliament and, according to parliamentary records, several of them have resulted in major changes to the way we are."

"Compulsory voting at federal elections was introduced as a result of a private senator's bill in 1924. A bill emanating from Democrat senator Janet Powell in 1989 led to the banning of tobacco advertising in the print media and in 1981, while Senator Susan Ryan's bill to outlaw sex discrimination was not passed, it became the basis for the Hawke government's landmark legislation in 1983."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/all-together-now/2006/02/17/1140151816800.html?page=6

And then my final comment: A Final comment......

From that previous story ....

"If the women in Canberra get serious, they can change child care, they can make the tax system fairer for working mothers"

The writer who (no doubt) has championed the cause of women in recent years proudly wrote, in that article.......

< In late 2003, in my book The End of Equality, I characterised the female members of Federal Parliament as "political eunuchs" >

For a moment I'd like to say, lets forget about the "burning of the bras", etc, etc and let's look at the "bigger" picture that has presented itself. After all, there ARE working fathers.....MMmm?

A 'fairer' tax system for them, too?

It was traderone who passed the comment here (post 1242), that ...

< perhaps we should just have more conscience votes as opposed to simply towing the party line. >

If only the large percentage of women voters [ & in particular, Senators Judith Troeth (Liberal, Victoria), Claire Moore (ALP, Queensland), Fiona Nash (Nationals, NSW) and Lyn Allison (Australian Democrats, Victoria)..] were quickly brought to fully understand the opportunities they now have, to finally do something positive that can have long lasting benefits for ALL members of our society.

From "Women's Charter for Political Reform with Rationale" - (1. POLITICAL EQUALITY FOR WOMEN).

" If they political parties were subject to the same legislation that applies throughout the public service and in private enterprise, they would be compelled to apply the principles of non-discrimination and their members would have recourse access to the law if they believed they had been discriminated against. The application of such laws would discourage discrimination and encourage a greater number of women, Aboriginal and non English-speaking background candidates to put themselves forward for pre-selection.

If the practice of non-discrimination is widely accepted as the ethical standard in Australia, and if the political parties set the agenda and standards in public life, there is no excuse or argument for exempting political parties from the same standards in relation to their employment practices, election of officers, pre-selections or any other business they conduct."

http://www.wip.webcentral.com.au/charter/3_1equ.html

Seize the Opportunity.........

But please don't forget ....... there ARE working fathers, too......
________________________

And tps216 did his own follow-up in relation to the (* Footnote), with:

< Following on from my post the other day -

Reserve Bank governor Ian Macfarlane has criticised the way appointments to the bank's board are made, saying giving a job to South Australian businessman Rob Gerard shows the system is flawed.

Mr Macfarlane said Mr Gerard would never have been made a director if his behaviour and that of his personal companies were known.

Mr Gerard, a manufacturer, resigned from the RBA board late last year after details surrounding tax issues between his personal company and the Australian Tax Office were made public.

A settlement was reached between the company and the tax office for $75 million.

Before his appointment, Mr Gerard had signed a statement declaring he had no outstanding tax issues.

Despite demands from Labor, the government has shown no support for changing the appointment system, which relies on the treasurer of the day putting a name to cabinet.

Mr Macfarlane told a parliamentary economics committee he had never heard of Mr Gerard before Treasurer Peter Costello rang the governor and told him of the new director.

He said that in light of the problems surrounding Mr Gerard, it was clear he would not have been appointed had his tax issues been known.

"I think it did expose a problem, there's not much doubt about that," he said.

"That someone was appointed who had engaged in some behaviour which had it been known, wouldn't have been appointed. It does show up a flaw."

Mr Macfarlane said he was not particularly wedded to the current system of appointments.

But finding a new system would be difficult, while in the case of Mr Gerard, the confidentiality of the tax system had been an issue.

"There have been 20 appointments to the Reserve Bank board or the payments system board, including reappointments, 19 of them have been excellent and one caused intense controversy," he said.

Opposition finance spokesman Lindsay Tanner, a member of the economics committee, said Mr Macfarlane's comments highlighted the problems with the current appointment process.

"It's significant that the Reserve Bank governor believes that the appointments system is flawed because most people would have realised there were problems with the Gerard appointment," he told AAP.

Mr Tanner said it was clear Mr Macfarlane had some problems with the current system, and the way in which it had failed in the Gerard issue.

"Ian Macfarlane is a straight shooter. I think he was just being honest today and he acknowledged that the system needs to change," he said.

Opposition treasury spokesman Wayne Swan said although Mr Macfarlane may not have heard of Mr Gerard before his appointment, the Liberal Party was well aware of him.

"The only people who seemed to know Mr Gerard were those in the Liberal Party who had seen his $1 million donations to the party," he said.

Mr Macfarlane defended the overall make-up of the Reserve Bank board, saying the absence of full-time economic professionals did not harm its operation.

He said other central banks were moving towards bringing non-economic specialists on to their boards.

Mr Macfarlane said the business appointees to the board had no real inside advantage over other people.

"I don't think they would have a better knowledge than a well-informed economist who has no connection to the Reserve Bank," he said. >
___________________

There-in lies the crux of the matter, in my opinion.

Sincerely,

:)
LC