Following on from my previous blog on the style of politician/policy that is thriving under our current system, promoted by the 24hr media cycle. I encourage you all to read the following article:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2908995.htm
I believe there is serious merit in the arguments put forward in the article. It is definitely worth discussion.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Does it annoy you?
Politics in Australia annoys me. Most politicians annoy me. The community’s acceptance of the state of politics and the skill level of our politicians annoys me. Here is why:
When elected governments have an issue that they took to the election as a promise we will hear talk of how they have “a mandate for change”, “a mandate for action” which is fair enough given the Collins dictionary defines mandate as “the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory”. Yet when they are breaking a promise, the word mandate and all its meaning vanishes. It is my belief that political parties contesting election should publish all the issues they are seeking a “mandate” on before the election in a clear and simple format, free of spin. That list then needs to be monitored and have the outcomes recorded against each issue stating what has happened, what is planned, why nothing has happened and will anything happen. I’m tired of promises being made, forgotten, distorted and buried.
I’m tired of the 24 hour media cycle, the politics it promotes and the style of politician that thrives under it. It is an incredibly lazy system that we have allowed to develop. The cycle is promoted by the media advisors of the parties in an attempt to keep their party in the headlines, it is sold to us by the media as what we want, when in reality the reason they are on board with the 24 hour cycle is that it lets them do very little work. All a journalist needs to do these days is take the press release, throw in a few lines of padding about things that don’t matter, then add a headline and presto, you have an article. Why search for the full facts? Why do any real analysis? Why ignore the spin and self-promotion that is hidden in all the press releases, the media advisors have given you a “just add water story” so that is all they need to do. This has led to society being inundated with announcements, headlines, promises, facts and figures, all unchecked all with very little analysis and even less substance. This inundation has lead to accountability being a forgotten word. Politicians are no longer held accountable for the truth and consequence of what they say and do, as society is so confused and swamped by what they have actually said. They are only held to account by their party on whether what they have said has resulted in a positive outcome in the polls.
What this means is we are left with a system that is inundated with fame seeking politicians and sitcom sized problems, problems that create headlines, get the politicians in the spotlight and make it appear to the electorate like our elected representatives are earning their keep. This has lead to simple solutions for simple problems and no one watching what is happening to the complex problems. If we want our society to thrive, we need to remove the celebrity of politics, stop allowing politicians to appear in our nightly news bulletins and front page stories as a daily occurrence. Only put them in our papers if what they have done truly warrants the front page, only interview them if they have something of substance to say. We need to stop applauding mediocrity, start applauding them for what they are elected to do, that is, make tough decisions, act on the behalf of their electorate, and work their backsides off for the good of the country and not for the good of the next election. If you want to be a celebrity, go win a Logie, don’t become a politician.
When elected governments have an issue that they took to the election as a promise we will hear talk of how they have “a mandate for change”, “a mandate for action” which is fair enough given the Collins dictionary defines mandate as “the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory”. Yet when they are breaking a promise, the word mandate and all its meaning vanishes. It is my belief that political parties contesting election should publish all the issues they are seeking a “mandate” on before the election in a clear and simple format, free of spin. That list then needs to be monitored and have the outcomes recorded against each issue stating what has happened, what is planned, why nothing has happened and will anything happen. I’m tired of promises being made, forgotten, distorted and buried.
I’m tired of the 24 hour media cycle, the politics it promotes and the style of politician that thrives under it. It is an incredibly lazy system that we have allowed to develop. The cycle is promoted by the media advisors of the parties in an attempt to keep their party in the headlines, it is sold to us by the media as what we want, when in reality the reason they are on board with the 24 hour cycle is that it lets them do very little work. All a journalist needs to do these days is take the press release, throw in a few lines of padding about things that don’t matter, then add a headline and presto, you have an article. Why search for the full facts? Why do any real analysis? Why ignore the spin and self-promotion that is hidden in all the press releases, the media advisors have given you a “just add water story” so that is all they need to do. This has led to society being inundated with announcements, headlines, promises, facts and figures, all unchecked all with very little analysis and even less substance. This inundation has lead to accountability being a forgotten word. Politicians are no longer held accountable for the truth and consequence of what they say and do, as society is so confused and swamped by what they have actually said. They are only held to account by their party on whether what they have said has resulted in a positive outcome in the polls.
What this means is we are left with a system that is inundated with fame seeking politicians and sitcom sized problems, problems that create headlines, get the politicians in the spotlight and make it appear to the electorate like our elected representatives are earning their keep. This has lead to simple solutions for simple problems and no one watching what is happening to the complex problems. If we want our society to thrive, we need to remove the celebrity of politics, stop allowing politicians to appear in our nightly news bulletins and front page stories as a daily occurrence. Only put them in our papers if what they have done truly warrants the front page, only interview them if they have something of substance to say. We need to stop applauding mediocrity, start applauding them for what they are elected to do, that is, make tough decisions, act on the behalf of their electorate, and work their backsides off for the good of the country and not for the good of the next election. If you want to be a celebrity, go win a Logie, don’t become a politician.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Quick look over there it's Elvis!
Well done to Mr. Rudd and Mr. Swan on producing an election year budget disguised as a budget designed by fiscal conservatives. Those that think the stage managed show that is the federal Labor party has produced a sensible budget, designed as a plan for recovery, a plan to return to surplus, a budget that wasn't designed with the sole intention of laying the foundations to paint themselves as economically trustworthy, fiscal geniuses, should keep their heads buried in the sand so I can kick them up the backside!
Recently Mr. Rudd scrapped the plan to build 260 child care centres (when originally announced his plan got him plenty of positive press), but wait for it here is the best bit, this is actually genius. Our cities are in need of new child care centres in our population dense areas, canceling this plan, will lead to an increase in cost as demand is not met, under this budget Mr. Swan has then increased the cost of child care further by reducing the child care rebate. The effect of this double increase will cause thousands of families to be priced out of child care, it will lead to the cost vs. benefit of mothers/fathers returning to work tipping in the way of cost, which will reduce the amount of people looking for work, which reduces unemployment. Boom! Pure genius, it will reduce demand on child care and reduce unemployment.
Without diving deep into the numbers breakdown, Mr. Swan has introduced personal income tax cuts, YAY WE LOVE TAX CUTS, but are we really getting tax cuts? The budget papers show that revenue on income tax is forecast to rise from $120 billion this year to $174 billion in four years time, this is mainly due to the growth rate causing bracket creep, and no adjustment to the brackets other than the tax free threshold increase (which will be eaten by bracket creep)
There has been $1billion removed from our foreign aid budget, yet we are still committed to our target of 0.5% of national income committed to foreign aid/development by 2015/16. If we hit that target, the projected budget surplus won't be occurring.
The most interesting part of this budget is the figure which is not there at all. The $42billion National Broadband Network is not in the budget. Mr. Swan said in his speech last night "The Government has made appropriate provision in the Budget for the roll-out of NBN, subject to a final response to the implementation study". In my books that is false accounting, they plan on spending $42billion, but as they see it as an income producing investment, they have left it out of the books. But hold on a second, what happens if the $42billion blows out, what happens if the return on investment targets are not met? what if? what if?
THERE WILL BE NO BUDGET SURPLUS, saying so is misleading, in fact it is fraudulent! Mr. Swan and Mr. Rudd stop marketing yourselves as something you are not, you are not brilliant economic managers, you are not fiscal conservatives. You lie, you deceive, you are brilliant at using smoke and mirrors!
Recently Mr. Rudd scrapped the plan to build 260 child care centres (when originally announced his plan got him plenty of positive press), but wait for it here is the best bit, this is actually genius. Our cities are in need of new child care centres in our population dense areas, canceling this plan, will lead to an increase in cost as demand is not met, under this budget Mr. Swan has then increased the cost of child care further by reducing the child care rebate. The effect of this double increase will cause thousands of families to be priced out of child care, it will lead to the cost vs. benefit of mothers/fathers returning to work tipping in the way of cost, which will reduce the amount of people looking for work, which reduces unemployment. Boom! Pure genius, it will reduce demand on child care and reduce unemployment.
Without diving deep into the numbers breakdown, Mr. Swan has introduced personal income tax cuts, YAY WE LOVE TAX CUTS, but are we really getting tax cuts? The budget papers show that revenue on income tax is forecast to rise from $120 billion this year to $174 billion in four years time, this is mainly due to the growth rate causing bracket creep, and no adjustment to the brackets other than the tax free threshold increase (which will be eaten by bracket creep)
There has been $1billion removed from our foreign aid budget, yet we are still committed to our target of 0.5% of national income committed to foreign aid/development by 2015/16. If we hit that target, the projected budget surplus won't be occurring.
The most interesting part of this budget is the figure which is not there at all. The $42billion National Broadband Network is not in the budget. Mr. Swan said in his speech last night "The Government has made appropriate provision in the Budget for the roll-out of NBN, subject to a final response to the implementation study". In my books that is false accounting, they plan on spending $42billion, but as they see it as an income producing investment, they have left it out of the books. But hold on a second, what happens if the $42billion blows out, what happens if the return on investment targets are not met? what if? what if?
THERE WILL BE NO BUDGET SURPLUS, saying so is misleading, in fact it is fraudulent! Mr. Swan and Mr. Rudd stop marketing yourselves as something you are not, you are not brilliant economic managers, you are not fiscal conservatives. You lie, you deceive, you are brilliant at using smoke and mirrors!
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Kristina Keneally- Union Puppet or Dame in Shining Armour?
“I am nobody’s puppet, I am nobody’s protégé, I am nobody’s girl"
Kristina Keneally, December 2009
When Nathan Rees was forced out of the pole position in December last year, his outgoing gift to the NSW Opposition, and warning to the NSW public, was the promise that whoever replaced him would be just another union ‘puppet.’
Over the following four months the new Premier, well coiffed and media savvy, fought hard to shake that image.
She spent the summer travelling around the state, being seen at every flood; fire; school opening; down mines; drought affected areas; effortlessly riding her bike to Parliament, sipping desalination plant water as if it were expensive Sav Blanc.
She tried hard to distance herself from her tainted Government and create what has become known as ‘Brand Keneally.’
And slowly but surely, the rumble around town became more positive, people starting to talk about the ‘hot’ new Premier.
Women wanted to be her, and men, well, wanted to be with her. The tide began to turn from the negative obsession with the Labor Government to one, for long suffering Labor supporters, of almost nervous hope.
Aussies love to back an underdog and Keneally had underdog qualities.
The odds of her surviving the public’s fierce scrutiny were not good. A woman with a much criticized, stubborn American twang that refused to leave her despite years of speech classes, she was pushed into the limelight to try and resurrect a Government everyone had long ago lost hope in.
Considering the rabble that is her Government and the stench left from the corruption that plagued Labor since before the doomed Morris Iemma took over the reins in 2007, even the most die hard Liberal will agree she has done pretty well.
Kristina Keneally has come out looking disturbingly dame-in-shining-armouresque like.
That is, perhaps, until now.
For anyone that actually follows the daily ins and outs of state politics in NSW, Monday May 3rd 2010 should be a day to remember, the day Nathan Rees’s puppet prediction came true.
Or at the risk of being over dramatic, at least the day Kristina dropped the polished guise of being a stand-alone player.
Kristina Keneally was invited by the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group (NCIG) to officially open the new $1 billion coal loader. The coal loader will shift up to 30 million tonnes a year and provide jobs to around 800 people for two to three years.
New infrastructure and more jobs is exactly what this broke and struggling state needs. After recently wasting $500 million on the failed CBD Metro project the Premier should be welcoming this huge contribution to the economy with arms wide open.
Yet the opening was snubbed by Kristina Keneally and her entire Cabinet.
Why?
Because the Maritime Union of Australia lobbied her to boycott the opening, citing problems with collective union work agreements.
The questions this raises are;
- Does this spell the beginning of the end of Kristina being able to keep the unions at arms length?
- Was she right in boycotting this event at the behest of the unions and a workplace agreement?
- What power does Government have to intervene in work place agreements?
My prediction?
Unfortunately for Kristina, despite her most valiant efforts, she has already stumbled and will ultimately either be dragged down by union bullies, or else fall at the hands of the mistakes made by her stale and corrupt Government.
Kristina Keneally, December 2009
When Nathan Rees was forced out of the pole position in December last year, his outgoing gift to the NSW Opposition, and warning to the NSW public, was the promise that whoever replaced him would be just another union ‘puppet.’
Over the following four months the new Premier, well coiffed and media savvy, fought hard to shake that image.
She spent the summer travelling around the state, being seen at every flood; fire; school opening; down mines; drought affected areas; effortlessly riding her bike to Parliament, sipping desalination plant water as if it were expensive Sav Blanc.
She tried hard to distance herself from her tainted Government and create what has become known as ‘Brand Keneally.’
And slowly but surely, the rumble around town became more positive, people starting to talk about the ‘hot’ new Premier.
Women wanted to be her, and men, well, wanted to be with her. The tide began to turn from the negative obsession with the Labor Government to one, for long suffering Labor supporters, of almost nervous hope.
Aussies love to back an underdog and Keneally had underdog qualities.
The odds of her surviving the public’s fierce scrutiny were not good. A woman with a much criticized, stubborn American twang that refused to leave her despite years of speech classes, she was pushed into the limelight to try and resurrect a Government everyone had long ago lost hope in.
Considering the rabble that is her Government and the stench left from the corruption that plagued Labor since before the doomed Morris Iemma took over the reins in 2007, even the most die hard Liberal will agree she has done pretty well.
Kristina Keneally has come out looking disturbingly dame-in-shining-armouresque like.
That is, perhaps, until now.
For anyone that actually follows the daily ins and outs of state politics in NSW, Monday May 3rd 2010 should be a day to remember, the day Nathan Rees’s puppet prediction came true.
Or at the risk of being over dramatic, at least the day Kristina dropped the polished guise of being a stand-alone player.
Kristina Keneally was invited by the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group (NCIG) to officially open the new $1 billion coal loader. The coal loader will shift up to 30 million tonnes a year and provide jobs to around 800 people for two to three years.
New infrastructure and more jobs is exactly what this broke and struggling state needs. After recently wasting $500 million on the failed CBD Metro project the Premier should be welcoming this huge contribution to the economy with arms wide open.
Yet the opening was snubbed by Kristina Keneally and her entire Cabinet.
Why?
Because the Maritime Union of Australia lobbied her to boycott the opening, citing problems with collective union work agreements.
The questions this raises are;
- Does this spell the beginning of the end of Kristina being able to keep the unions at arms length?
- Was she right in boycotting this event at the behest of the unions and a workplace agreement?
- What power does Government have to intervene in work place agreements?
My prediction?
Unfortunately for Kristina, despite her most valiant efforts, she has already stumbled and will ultimately either be dragged down by union bullies, or else fall at the hands of the mistakes made by her stale and corrupt Government.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Is IVF a human right? Should prisoners receive it?
(excuse the length, I will edit posts down in the future)
Earlier today I was sent the following article by Crocoduck, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/04/2889821.htm (please do read it before reading on)
While brief in detail I found the article/case raised a couple of interesting questions:
1. Should prisoners be allowed to continue IVF while in custody?
2. Is IVF a human right?
Following is my initial thoughts and response:
" Would she have the right to conjugal visits?
Was she trying IVF before she went in?
Is it a key human right to fall pregnant?
If she was 23 would the court even entertain the idea?
Without thinking to hard about it I think it should not be allowed.
Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent.
Ok I guess the argument is she is going to miss out by a matter of months, that the punishment shouldn’t hang over her head for the rest of her life. But where do you cut it off? If she had 18months remaining? 3 years? 5 years?
I would need to see the full case details.
Eg. Lets say she has been undergoing IVF for a number of years, she was sent to prison yesterday for a 12month non parole period. She goes over the age barrier in 7 months. Does the punishment of potentially missing out on falling pregnant make the punishment not fit the crime?
I think she should apply to the IVF (board? Hospital? Judge) to allow to undergo 7 months of IVF once she gets out.
I am pretty certain she can go overseas and have IVF after age 46… so the right is still there. However her crime may make travel difficult"
I then sent the email to two female friends. Both in their mid twenties, both well educated and luckily for me and you, both quite opinionated.
The first replied with this:
"hmm I know it may seem obvious that she's been trying for a kid her whole life but I would still first ask - has she had kids before?
can she even afford to have kids/ a kid if she's in court for welfare fraud?
If the answer is she hasn't ever been able to, has been waiting for yrs, spent all her money on IVF etc... then I'd be sympathetic to allowing her out for IVF.
But if she already has a few and can't afford to keep them then it's a nay from me"
The second friend pulled out the big guns:
"She definitely shouldn't get access.
Women seeking access to IVF can be split into two groups.
1) women who have healthy eggs but need IVF for other reasons (i.e. can't conceive naturally, partner has poor sperm count);
2) women who could conceive (healthy womb) but aren't producing eggs any more or whose eggs are damaged
Given she is 46, it is highly likely she is in the later category and would require egg donation. This is where the issue gets more complicated.
The demand for egg donors greatly outstrips supply in Australian clinics (women reluctant to donate eggs).
At the moment, we ration this imbalance of supply / demand, by basically putting women on a wait list, which means younger women can wait a very long time before receiving an egg. I think that's a poor approach. I think if you are single or over 40, you should be much lower preference to a woman who is younger and in a stable relationship. If there was an excess of eggs, maybe you wouldn't have to think like that, but the fact is that woman taking an egg from a more worthy recipient.
To avoid confusion, by "worthy" I don't mean that woman is less moral or a worse person than others (I don't know the circumstances around her sentence), however she clearly doesn't have the capabilities to provide a safe and stable environment for child. The government should be discouraging women getting pregnant in those circumstances, not funding them."
I then sent friend 2 my response (as shown above)"
Friend 2 continued,
"Agree very much on this point "Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent."
In response to your questions: is it a key human right to fall pregnant? I say no.
I think it is a human right to be able to conceive without government interference, however I don't believe the government is in any way obligated to facilitate your pregnancy. Given the limited supply of resources for both money (to fund IVF) and donor eggs, I think the government needs to take a view as to who they should assist in falling pregnant and who they shouldn't.
Regarding the recent email you just sent, let me explain what I mean by my view that "she clearly doesn't have the capabilities to provide a safe and stable environment for the child".
Children need stability, both financially and emotionally, so they are able to develop in a safe environment. It's also clearly advantageous if they are raised by a parent who respects societies laws, as that respect tends to be inherited and creates more law-abiding citizens (conservative view, but true).
Given this woman was conducting welfare fraud and has been in jail, she
- is unlikely to be financially stable
- is unlikely to be in a committed relationship
- clearly has little respect for society and other citizens (i.e. tax payers who funded her)
The "committed relationship" point isn't because I have an issue with unmarried women (clearly), but because children whose mothers have a high turnover of partners (and this women certainly falls into this demographic) are considerably more likely to be sexually abused.
In short, whilst you can never 100% predict how some one will perform as a mother (i.e. she could clean up her act and be a wonderful mum), the indicators point to that fact she will likely provide terrible conditions in which to bring up a child. I don't want a government to go out and sterilize her, but should community resources be put towards assisting her conceive? Clearly not"
I forwarded this reply onto Crocoduck, whose reply to friend 2 was:
"You have extrapolated so much presumed history about this woman from absolutely no information other than she is serving a sentence for welfare fraud that it is bordering on the fantastic (in the true sense of the word). And besides, whether she fits your presumed demographic or not, the legal issues aren’t anything to do with the suitability of her as a parent. The government doesn’t means test the baby bonus after all! Never one to go the ad hominem, but as an aside, your comment that a high turnover of male partners means that a child is “considerably more likely to be sexually abused” is intellectually insulting.
There is no issue here that the effect of prohibiting her access to IVF is akin to state-sanctioned sterilisation. The considerations are focused on whether the state ought to allow those incarcerated to enjoy the liberties of the free. Curtailing civic rights (beyond mere imprisonment) of prisoners is not foreign to Australia where prisoners serving sentences for three years or more aren’t allowed to vote in government elections. The question remains: Is IVF something a prisoner is entitled to receive?"
This is where I stopped the discussion in a quest to find out more information. This is what I have found.
The prisoner was sentenced to 3 years in prison with a non parole period of 18 months.
She had "At varying times from 1984 to 1998, Ms Castles claimed single parenting payments while living with her husband.
From 2000-2006, she also claimed Newstart Allowance under a fake name while receiving payments in her own name." http://frankston-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/frankston-woman-jailed-for-welfare-fraud/
The prisoner already has two children, one of whom appears to live with her in the jail. She has had 24 unaccompanied visits outside the prison. She is allowed conjugal visits and can go home accompanied once every four weeks. She will be eligible for home detention in 6 months. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/trial-to-decide-prisoners-right-to-ivf-treatment-20100504-u5gi.html
There has been four births inside the jail this year. The prisoner "alleges authorities have broken the Charter of Human Rights.
"It is unlawful for (prison authorities) to act in a way that is incompatible with a human right," lawyers for Castles argue. "The charter provides that Kimberley has the right not to have family unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with ... It is unlawful discrimination to prevent Kimberley from accessing the treatment which she requires to conceive." Further submissions say the charter gave Castles the right to choose the size of her family despite her imprisonment. It also gave her daughter the right to have a sibling and her partner the right to have another child. Ms Castle's barrister, Ron Merkel QC, argues Castles' infertility is a medical condition and should be treated through IVF. "The power the department has is the ability to destroy her reproductive health and to bring it to an end for no reason. This power is being abused.The Department of Justice seems to have a adopted a one-child policy," Mr Merkel said.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/jailbird-pleads-for-ivf-chance/story-e6frf7jo-1225860814603
I am interested to hear what Crocoduck, friend one and friend two have to say about this new information. Personally I think the barrister's arguments are ridiculous. The prisoner systematically abused the welfare system for a number of years. She knew it was illegal, she knew if caught there would be consequences. She now needs to deal with those consequences. As I said above- Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent.
Instead of changing the rules inside the prison, why doesn't she instead challenge the cut off being set at 46? or is that another bag of worms for another day?
Earlier today I was sent the following article by Crocoduck, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/04/2889821.htm (please do read it before reading on)
While brief in detail I found the article/case raised a couple of interesting questions:
1. Should prisoners be allowed to continue IVF while in custody?
2. Is IVF a human right?
Following is my initial thoughts and response:
" Would she have the right to conjugal visits?
Was she trying IVF before she went in?
Is it a key human right to fall pregnant?
If she was 23 would the court even entertain the idea?
Without thinking to hard about it I think it should not be allowed.
Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent.
Ok I guess the argument is she is going to miss out by a matter of months, that the punishment shouldn’t hang over her head for the rest of her life. But where do you cut it off? If she had 18months remaining? 3 years? 5 years?
I would need to see the full case details.
Eg. Lets say she has been undergoing IVF for a number of years, she was sent to prison yesterday for a 12month non parole period. She goes over the age barrier in 7 months. Does the punishment of potentially missing out on falling pregnant make the punishment not fit the crime?
I think she should apply to the IVF (board? Hospital? Judge) to allow to undergo 7 months of IVF once she gets out.
I am pretty certain she can go overseas and have IVF after age 46… so the right is still there. However her crime may make travel difficult"
I then sent the email to two female friends. Both in their mid twenties, both well educated and luckily for me and you, both quite opinionated.
The first replied with this:
"hmm I know it may seem obvious that she's been trying for a kid her whole life but I would still first ask - has she had kids before?
can she even afford to have kids/ a kid if she's in court for welfare fraud?
If the answer is she hasn't ever been able to, has been waiting for yrs, spent all her money on IVF etc... then I'd be sympathetic to allowing her out for IVF.
But if she already has a few and can't afford to keep them then it's a nay from me"
The second friend pulled out the big guns:
"She definitely shouldn't get access.
Women seeking access to IVF can be split into two groups.
1) women who have healthy eggs but need IVF for other reasons (i.e. can't conceive naturally, partner has poor sperm count);
2) women who could conceive (healthy womb) but aren't producing eggs any more or whose eggs are damaged
Given she is 46, it is highly likely she is in the later category and would require egg donation. This is where the issue gets more complicated.
The demand for egg donors greatly outstrips supply in Australian clinics (women reluctant to donate eggs).
At the moment, we ration this imbalance of supply / demand, by basically putting women on a wait list, which means younger women can wait a very long time before receiving an egg. I think that's a poor approach. I think if you are single or over 40, you should be much lower preference to a woman who is younger and in a stable relationship. If there was an excess of eggs, maybe you wouldn't have to think like that, but the fact is that woman taking an egg from a more worthy recipient.
To avoid confusion, by "worthy" I don't mean that woman is less moral or a worse person than others (I don't know the circumstances around her sentence), however she clearly doesn't have the capabilities to provide a safe and stable environment for child. The government should be discouraging women getting pregnant in those circumstances, not funding them."
I then sent friend 2 my response (as shown above)"
Friend 2 continued,
"Agree very much on this point "Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent."
In response to your questions: is it a key human right to fall pregnant? I say no.
I think it is a human right to be able to conceive without government interference, however I don't believe the government is in any way obligated to facilitate your pregnancy. Given the limited supply of resources for both money (to fund IVF) and donor eggs, I think the government needs to take a view as to who they should assist in falling pregnant and who they shouldn't.
Regarding the recent email you just sent, let me explain what I mean by my view that "she clearly doesn't have the capabilities to provide a safe and stable environment for the child".
Children need stability, both financially and emotionally, so they are able to develop in a safe environment. It's also clearly advantageous if they are raised by a parent who respects societies laws, as that respect tends to be inherited and creates more law-abiding citizens (conservative view, but true).
Given this woman was conducting welfare fraud and has been in jail, she
- is unlikely to be financially stable
- is unlikely to be in a committed relationship
- clearly has little respect for society and other citizens (i.e. tax payers who funded her)
The "committed relationship" point isn't because I have an issue with unmarried women (clearly), but because children whose mothers have a high turnover of partners (and this women certainly falls into this demographic) are considerably more likely to be sexually abused.
In short, whilst you can never 100% predict how some one will perform as a mother (i.e. she could clean up her act and be a wonderful mum), the indicators point to that fact she will likely provide terrible conditions in which to bring up a child. I don't want a government to go out and sterilize her, but should community resources be put towards assisting her conceive? Clearly not"
I forwarded this reply onto Crocoduck, whose reply to friend 2 was:
"You have extrapolated so much presumed history about this woman from absolutely no information other than she is serving a sentence for welfare fraud that it is bordering on the fantastic (in the true sense of the word). And besides, whether she fits your presumed demographic or not, the legal issues aren’t anything to do with the suitability of her as a parent. The government doesn’t means test the baby bonus after all! Never one to go the ad hominem, but as an aside, your comment that a high turnover of male partners means that a child is “considerably more likely to be sexually abused” is intellectually insulting.
There is no issue here that the effect of prohibiting her access to IVF is akin to state-sanctioned sterilisation. The considerations are focused on whether the state ought to allow those incarcerated to enjoy the liberties of the free. Curtailing civic rights (beyond mere imprisonment) of prisoners is not foreign to Australia where prisoners serving sentences for three years or more aren’t allowed to vote in government elections. The question remains: Is IVF something a prisoner is entitled to receive?"
This is where I stopped the discussion in a quest to find out more information. This is what I have found.
The prisoner was sentenced to 3 years in prison with a non parole period of 18 months.
She had "At varying times from 1984 to 1998, Ms Castles claimed single parenting payments while living with her husband.
From 2000-2006, she also claimed Newstart Allowance under a fake name while receiving payments in her own name." http://frankston-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/frankston-woman-jailed-for-welfare-fraud/
The prisoner already has two children, one of whom appears to live with her in the jail. She has had 24 unaccompanied visits outside the prison. She is allowed conjugal visits and can go home accompanied once every four weeks. She will be eligible for home detention in 6 months. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/trial-to-decide-prisoners-right-to-ivf-treatment-20100504-u5gi.html
There has been four births inside the jail this year. The prisoner "alleges authorities have broken the Charter of Human Rights.
"It is unlawful for (prison authorities) to act in a way that is incompatible with a human right," lawyers for Castles argue. "The charter provides that Kimberley has the right not to have family unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with ... It is unlawful discrimination to prevent Kimberley from accessing the treatment which she requires to conceive." Further submissions say the charter gave Castles the right to choose the size of her family despite her imprisonment. It also gave her daughter the right to have a sibling and her partner the right to have another child. Ms Castle's barrister, Ron Merkel QC, argues Castles' infertility is a medical condition and should be treated through IVF. "The power the department has is the ability to destroy her reproductive health and to bring it to an end for no reason. This power is being abused.The Department of Justice seems to have a adopted a one-child policy," Mr Merkel said.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/jailbird-pleads-for-ivf-chance/story-e6frf7jo-1225860814603
I am interested to hear what Crocoduck, friend one and friend two have to say about this new information. Personally I think the barrister's arguments are ridiculous. The prisoner systematically abused the welfare system for a number of years. She knew it was illegal, she knew if caught there would be consequences. She now needs to deal with those consequences. As I said above- Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent.
Instead of changing the rules inside the prison, why doesn't she instead challenge the cut off being set at 46? or is that another bag of worms for another day?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)