Exciting times in the media this week. The Budget was presented as was Labor's reply. Interesting week indeed. Surprises aplenty, and more than just from the Treasurer.
First up, i'll say that I headed down to Canberra for the Budget. Why? Well... why not. I could say that I sensed something big - but that would be an outright lie. Haha! Got in early and got a glimpse of Question Time and saw the Member for Ballarat get snapped in half (Not literally, of course).
This was a preview to come for sure. Ms King(Member for Ballarat) made an aggressive song and dance about how several Maxitran workers were laid off while Chinese workers remained. No mention was made as to how competent or hard working these Chinese workers are - it seems that Labor believes that Chinese workers here on working visas should always be the frist to get the sack. Seriously... and somehow the Liberals get tagged as racist.
The fun thing about this little segment of Question Time wasn't Ms King's xenophobia but it was how she got comprehensively owned. In the Government's response Mr Hardgrave (Minister for Vocational and Technical Education) opened up with a neat little paragraph.
Hardgrave: I thank the member for Ballarat for her question. It has been 266 days since the
Australian Labor Party asked a question of me in this place about training, about skills or about apprenticeships. It was on 16 August last year, which was the 28th anniversary of the death of Elvis.
The question was then answered, but Ms King couldn't stop. After a question on the Solomon Islands, she was back for part 2. Unfortunately most of her question was overruled by the Speaker of the House, Mr Hawker.
Hawker: Order! The member for Ballarat will resume her seat. In calling the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, I rule that the first part of that question was asking for an opinion, the second part was in order and the third part was not needed.
Boom! What was the third part of the question... well let us have a look:
King: Will the government now join Labor in making its No. 1 priority to train Australians first and to train them now?
The entertainment contiued from the Minister:
Hardgrave: I think the last part was a commercial!
Entertainment, indeed. I only really ever watch small snippets of Question Time, but it can be entertaining at times :). Oh the debate gets even more interesting but i'll let you go check that out at Hansard (Official Records of Parliamentary Proceedings).
So what happens next? Well the rest of the mob go for a tour of Parliament. Been there, done that - so I got sucked into helping set up shop for later on in the night. After the tour of Parliament House was done (and the others that didn't go finished setting up) everyone headed back to camp - well... serviced appartments.
Luckily for us we were invited to the Bradfield function inside Parliament House, where we watched a live Budget feed. An interesting budget indeed. Finally, some relief to those who are punished the most. MPs were to be found all over the place at the Bradfield function including: Malcolm Turnbull, Brendan Nelson, and Joe Hockey.
Afterwards it was time to eat, drink and be merry. And i'll leave it there :). Oh, yea... Canberra Casino leaves much to be desired :D.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Friday, February 10, 2006
Senate Passes RU486 Bill - R U Joking?
Wow. Today I am not a happy chappy. Why is that? Today the Australian Senate has passed the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility For Approval of RU486) Bill 2005. What a joke. An absolute joke. The final vote was held at 4:49pm (Canberra time) and the result was 45 - 28 in favour of the bill.
First off, a brief on the Bill itself. The abortificant (the device which terminates the unborn baby's life) RU486 is currently a 'restricted drug' meaning that for it to be utilised in Australia it needs to be cleared with the Minister for Health (Tony Abbott). This Bill will pass the drug onto an independant body - the Therapeutic Drugs Administration (or TGA) for review without the need for Ministerial oversight.
Now lets have a breif on me for a second, so you all know where I stand. I am pro-life and am wholeheartedly against abortions except under special circumstances (e.g. rape). It may sound like I am sitting on the fence here but quite the contrary. I am a proponent of personal reponsibility and rape-induced pregnancies do not fall under personal responsibility. So anyway... back to the topic.
Why is it a problem that the Minister for Health lose his charge of determining whether or not this RU486 drug be allowed? Lots. First of all this drug is no ordinary drug and should not lose its status as a 'restricted drug'. Let us have a look at how horrendus this drug is and the damage that it can potentially cause.
[Note: for much of this I have not provided sources, but i'm sure you can google this information to validate it]
RU486 is one of two drugs used to abort an unborn child. Mifepristone (RU486) and misoprostol are the two drugs in question. RU486's role is to restrict the operation of progesterone - which maintains the nutrient lining of the uterus... effectively the baby's food supply. There is problem number one. Death via starvation. It is not a quick death, it is a slow and horrendous one. It gets worse - RU486 taken alone (before the second drug is ingested) doesn't always kill the unborn child. OMG! Death occurs only 60-70% of the time.
It doesn't really get that much better when you add drug number two - misoprostol. Misoprostol effectively causes contractions to expel the possibly-dead-but-not-quite-sure unborn child out of the womb. Fair enough, you have to get rid of the body. However, it's not always that easy. Even though most of the time the expulsion occurs within 4 hours, it has been the case where expulsion has occured up to 5 days later! Sigh.
Three, the unborn child isn't the only one that can die. That's right. If taken improperly the pregnant lass can die as well! Have a look at Holly Patterson in the United States for one case. Now, as these drug induced abortions and the human body are both inherently complex things it is difficult to categorically say that RU486 causes deaths directly, but it is entirely possible. Here's how the links can be made. It's not only just the one death, there have been several since the American TGA approved RU486's use of the drug a couple of years ago.
So judging by this it doesn't necessarily look like the safest drug on earth. Perhaps further study is warranted on the drug and its effects, the drug may or may not cause the death of a mother. It is hard to say... but when deaths are possible it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the matter be looked into carefully before it is allowed to be used througout the country. The 'restricted drug' label is warranted given the evidence around and that label should not be dropped whatsoever.
The TGA may be know-hows in the medical field, and that's cool. Maybe they should have a look into the drug and write some reports on it and what not. That's fine. Removing the oversight of the Minister on a dangerous drug altogether is a big no-no, let the reports come in and let the Minister have a read and decide - that's fair. It is a potentially dangerous drug and therefore it should not be treated like a Panadol.
Proponents of the Bill mention that the experts should have a look. Now i'm not against experts having a say, they are the ones best positioned to make reports on these sorts of things. However, there is an important distinction that I have made here... as I have used the word report. When dealing with the safety of the Australian people, the elected government has the obligation to ensure our safety. Experts can say things like "the chance of getting seriously ill is so-and-so percent, and the chance of dying from this is blah percent" better than parliamentarians can, but the parliamentarain's role is decide on whether or not this is an acceptible risk for the public. We elect members of parliament and therefore the buck should stop with the parliamentarians, not some topical experts who have are accountable to nobody.
So there you have it. It is a dispicable drug that doesn't necessarily do it's job well (as in killing the baby outright) and it is questionable as to whether or not it is safe for the pregnant mother. As it is potentially lethal it should remain a 'restricted drug' and should remain under watch by the Minister for Health. I'm not saying that experts shouldn't have input, quite the contrary - they should input as much advice as possible. I'm saying that the decision for the drug to be accessible to mainstream Australia should lie with the Minister after the experts have their say.
It has been said that it is not a pro-life or pro-choice question at all. That's rubbish. Lets have a look at some Parliamentary Research. The paper says the following:
Restricted goods are defined under the Act as medicines ‘intended for use in women as abortifacients’. In other words, restricted goods provisions apply exclusively to medicines intended to induce an abortion. Medicines used for any purpose other than abortion are evaluated and regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) without any requirement for approval from the Minister.
This Bill will pave the way for all medicinal abortifacients to bypass Ministerial Responsibility, thus swinging the pendulum towards the pro-choice camp in a very big way. What is to stop the next baby-killer drug from bypassing the Minister when there is the trump card: RU486 is through, why not this one? Parliamentarians need to think, and think hard on where they stand on the issue of pro-life and pro-choice as well as look at the procedure involved for this drug in particular. It is NOT simply a Bill solely on process.
It saddens me to see the Senate vote the way that they have. Hopefully the House of Representatives defeats the Bill. Furthermore, lets look at another point. Only one application for RU486 has been lodged with the Minister for Health. One. This Bill can also, therefore, be considered a royal waste of time.
Moving on to some related topics. It baffles me as to why abortion is so prevalent and why abortion has so much support. If you don't want a baby, then don't get pregnant. That makes perfect sense to me. We shoudn't even be asking the pro-life or pro-choice question at all! I can understand that this is not such a simple thing in developing and third-world countries, but we live in Australia. Contraceptions are widely available AND it is a hell of a lot cheaper than abortions. Alas, this is another topic which will have to be dealt with another day.
Massive post today - I guess it shows my disappointment.
First off, a brief on the Bill itself. The abortificant (the device which terminates the unborn baby's life) RU486 is currently a 'restricted drug' meaning that for it to be utilised in Australia it needs to be cleared with the Minister for Health (Tony Abbott). This Bill will pass the drug onto an independant body - the Therapeutic Drugs Administration (or TGA) for review without the need for Ministerial oversight.
Now lets have a breif on me for a second, so you all know where I stand. I am pro-life and am wholeheartedly against abortions except under special circumstances (e.g. rape). It may sound like I am sitting on the fence here but quite the contrary. I am a proponent of personal reponsibility and rape-induced pregnancies do not fall under personal responsibility. So anyway... back to the topic.
Why is it a problem that the Minister for Health lose his charge of determining whether or not this RU486 drug be allowed? Lots. First of all this drug is no ordinary drug and should not lose its status as a 'restricted drug'. Let us have a look at how horrendus this drug is and the damage that it can potentially cause.
[Note: for much of this I have not provided sources, but i'm sure you can google this information to validate it]
RU486 is one of two drugs used to abort an unborn child. Mifepristone (RU486) and misoprostol are the two drugs in question. RU486's role is to restrict the operation of progesterone - which maintains the nutrient lining of the uterus... effectively the baby's food supply. There is problem number one. Death via starvation. It is not a quick death, it is a slow and horrendous one. It gets worse - RU486 taken alone (before the second drug is ingested) doesn't always kill the unborn child. OMG! Death occurs only 60-70% of the time.
It doesn't really get that much better when you add drug number two - misoprostol. Misoprostol effectively causes contractions to expel the possibly-dead-but-not-quite-sure unborn child out of the womb. Fair enough, you have to get rid of the body. However, it's not always that easy. Even though most of the time the expulsion occurs within 4 hours, it has been the case where expulsion has occured up to 5 days later! Sigh.
Three, the unborn child isn't the only one that can die. That's right. If taken improperly the pregnant lass can die as well! Have a look at Holly Patterson in the United States for one case. Now, as these drug induced abortions and the human body are both inherently complex things it is difficult to categorically say that RU486 causes deaths directly, but it is entirely possible. Here's how the links can be made. It's not only just the one death, there have been several since the American TGA approved RU486's use of the drug a couple of years ago.
So judging by this it doesn't necessarily look like the safest drug on earth. Perhaps further study is warranted on the drug and its effects, the drug may or may not cause the death of a mother. It is hard to say... but when deaths are possible it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the matter be looked into carefully before it is allowed to be used througout the country. The 'restricted drug' label is warranted given the evidence around and that label should not be dropped whatsoever.
The TGA may be know-hows in the medical field, and that's cool. Maybe they should have a look into the drug and write some reports on it and what not. That's fine. Removing the oversight of the Minister on a dangerous drug altogether is a big no-no, let the reports come in and let the Minister have a read and decide - that's fair. It is a potentially dangerous drug and therefore it should not be treated like a Panadol.
Proponents of the Bill mention that the experts should have a look. Now i'm not against experts having a say, they are the ones best positioned to make reports on these sorts of things. However, there is an important distinction that I have made here... as I have used the word report. When dealing with the safety of the Australian people, the elected government has the obligation to ensure our safety. Experts can say things like "the chance of getting seriously ill is so-and-so percent, and the chance of dying from this is blah percent" better than parliamentarians can, but the parliamentarain's role is decide on whether or not this is an acceptible risk for the public. We elect members of parliament and therefore the buck should stop with the parliamentarians, not some topical experts who have are accountable to nobody.
So there you have it. It is a dispicable drug that doesn't necessarily do it's job well (as in killing the baby outright) and it is questionable as to whether or not it is safe for the pregnant mother. As it is potentially lethal it should remain a 'restricted drug' and should remain under watch by the Minister for Health. I'm not saying that experts shouldn't have input, quite the contrary - they should input as much advice as possible. I'm saying that the decision for the drug to be accessible to mainstream Australia should lie with the Minister after the experts have their say.
It has been said that it is not a pro-life or pro-choice question at all. That's rubbish. Lets have a look at some Parliamentary Research. The paper says the following:
Restricted goods are defined under the Act as medicines ‘intended for use in women as abortifacients’. In other words, restricted goods provisions apply exclusively to medicines intended to induce an abortion. Medicines used for any purpose other than abortion are evaluated and regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) without any requirement for approval from the Minister.
This Bill will pave the way for all medicinal abortifacients to bypass Ministerial Responsibility, thus swinging the pendulum towards the pro-choice camp in a very big way. What is to stop the next baby-killer drug from bypassing the Minister when there is the trump card: RU486 is through, why not this one? Parliamentarians need to think, and think hard on where they stand on the issue of pro-life and pro-choice as well as look at the procedure involved for this drug in particular. It is NOT simply a Bill solely on process.
It saddens me to see the Senate vote the way that they have. Hopefully the House of Representatives defeats the Bill. Furthermore, lets look at another point. Only one application for RU486 has been lodged with the Minister for Health. One. This Bill can also, therefore, be considered a royal waste of time.
Moving on to some related topics. It baffles me as to why abortion is so prevalent and why abortion has so much support. If you don't want a baby, then don't get pregnant. That makes perfect sense to me. We shoudn't even be asking the pro-life or pro-choice question at all! I can understand that this is not such a simple thing in developing and third-world countries, but we live in Australia. Contraceptions are widely available AND it is a hell of a lot cheaper than abortions. Alas, this is another topic which will have to be dealt with another day.
Massive post today - I guess it shows my disappointment.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Hypocracy and Student Politics
Observing student politics in action can be quite interesting. You have your usual crazy zealots and a whole bunch of students that don't give a rat's arse. Very interseting indeed. Where did student politics take me today? The University of Technology Sydney's Haymarket campus.
First of all a little brief on what's going there. The elections are for Union Board, Academic Board and Faculty Board. I have no idea why there are so many boards, but there it is. Polling takes place over 4 days and each day votes can be cast between 8:30am and 9:00pm (I think). Now that is a hell of a long time. If somebody were to ask me: "Where is student money going?" then my answer would have to be "To pay the people manning the election booths".
Hardly anyone voted while I was there as 90% of the people walking past the Union Centre (the minority of people that actually bother to walk past the Union Centre) either didn't care or said that they've voted (a blatant lie for many students).
So anyway, here's an interesting little segment from one of the people working for the Student Power ticket:
Student Power bloke: "We're Student Power - we're exactly about what we are called... giving back power to the Students."
Random Student: "What about these other people"
Student Power bloke: "Well these guys in red are Left Action and they're generally good people, George is an independant and is also pretty nice. Look all of us are progressive and are there for the students... those people over there are Students United and they're not progressive they have an agenda"
What a ripper. George, Left Action, Student Power have done a super-deal and are claiming that their opposition (Students United) have an agenda. Hahah. Classic.
Another classic example is the utter hypocrasy of some people. Gererally if a student is unknown to all of the campaigners then they get hit by everyone. The whole "We are blah and stand for blah, blah, blah - Vote for us". Now, once again i'll take a swipe at Student Power - because they deserve it. When everyone was doing their speil onto the not-so-interested student the same Student Power bloke from the scenario above would call out "You should look at all of the policies clearly and make an informed choice. An informed choice is the best choice" (or something to that effect). However, if he was the first to talk to a prospective voter he would actively promote his policies and then exclaim "don't take that sheet of paper, it's pure propaganda" when somebody from Students United would approach the same student. An informed choice? Yea, right!
I'll finish off with one more rant. Political discrimination. The left claim to be the "defenders against discrimination" or something to that effect. They typically use emotively charged language to further this illusion - stuff like "harmony","unity", "diversity" and "compassion". What bullshit. The left are the masters of political discrimination. Everybody assisting in the Students United campaign, including me, were asked (by multiple people) "Are you a member of the Liberal party? What branch of the Liberal party are you?". It gets worse... people that voted for Students United were also asked if they were members of the Liberal party. Disgraceful behaviour.
Finally, I would like to point out that some of the people that I met from both Left Action and Student Power were quite nice and did not partake in blatantly hypocritical acts. The crazies are the problem.
First of all a little brief on what's going there. The elections are for Union Board, Academic Board and Faculty Board. I have no idea why there are so many boards, but there it is. Polling takes place over 4 days and each day votes can be cast between 8:30am and 9:00pm (I think). Now that is a hell of a long time. If somebody were to ask me: "Where is student money going?" then my answer would have to be "To pay the people manning the election booths".
Hardly anyone voted while I was there as 90% of the people walking past the Union Centre (the minority of people that actually bother to walk past the Union Centre) either didn't care or said that they've voted (a blatant lie for many students).
So anyway, here's an interesting little segment from one of the people working for the Student Power ticket:
Student Power bloke: "We're Student Power - we're exactly about what we are called... giving back power to the Students."
Random Student: "What about these other people"
Student Power bloke: "Well these guys in red are Left Action and they're generally good people, George is an independant and is also pretty nice. Look all of us are progressive and are there for the students... those people over there are Students United and they're not progressive they have an agenda"
What a ripper. George, Left Action, Student Power have done a super-deal and are claiming that their opposition (Students United) have an agenda. Hahah. Classic.
Another classic example is the utter hypocrasy of some people. Gererally if a student is unknown to all of the campaigners then they get hit by everyone. The whole "We are blah and stand for blah, blah, blah - Vote for us". Now, once again i'll take a swipe at Student Power - because they deserve it. When everyone was doing their speil onto the not-so-interested student the same Student Power bloke from the scenario above would call out "You should look at all of the policies clearly and make an informed choice. An informed choice is the best choice" (or something to that effect). However, if he was the first to talk to a prospective voter he would actively promote his policies and then exclaim "don't take that sheet of paper, it's pure propaganda" when somebody from Students United would approach the same student. An informed choice? Yea, right!
I'll finish off with one more rant. Political discrimination. The left claim to be the "defenders against discrimination" or something to that effect. They typically use emotively charged language to further this illusion - stuff like "harmony","unity", "diversity" and "compassion". What bullshit. The left are the masters of political discrimination. Everybody assisting in the Students United campaign, including me, were asked (by multiple people) "Are you a member of the Liberal party? What branch of the Liberal party are you?". It gets worse... people that voted for Students United were also asked if they were members of the Liberal party. Disgraceful behaviour.
Finally, I would like to point out that some of the people that I met from both Left Action and Student Power were quite nice and did not partake in blatantly hypocritical acts. The crazies are the problem.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Outrage at the Oval and Koizumi Wins
This weekend has been quite intense - i'm still not really getting anywhere with my thesis (i've tried, trust me), the Aussies have been rorted, and Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has won comfortably in Japan's general election.
Skipping the thesis, i'm going to first talk about what happened last night. Australia screwed up bigtime - giving the game back to England by sheer incompetence. Incompetence in playing swing bowling. Going from 2/270 odd to faling short of England's total is really quite poor. It was time for England to have a bat... and what happens - the umpires decide it's too dark for the Aussie pacemen to bowl. Ok, fine.
So what happens? The master, Shane Warne, is brought into the attack - and dismisses Andrew Strauss, 1/2! Not too long afterwards the umpires have another chat and decide to stop play altogether. What the hell? Australia were going to bowl two spinners (only one of which is a real full-time spinner) ... the light wasn't so bad that you couldnt' see a ball being bowled slowly. The English batsmen seemed to be hitting the ball just fine.
I really don't see how Australia had an unfair advantage given the supposedly-low level of light. Rudi, the South African umpire, said that it was highly possible that the batsmen could lose sight of the ball when the ball was being bowled slowly. Really? I'm sure that if that was the case then it would be a loss of concentration rather than due to the light. Even if it was potentially hard to see the ball when batting... then it would be hard for the fieldsmen to see the ball as well? (Potential for drop catches and boundaries due to poor visibility). PLUS Australia was going to bowl a part time spinner - hardly advantageous to the Aussies. I find the whole situation ridiculous - we want a result here... win or lose. Keeping the fight going between Australia and England would have been the best thing for cricket - unfortunately the umpires didn't agree.
So there's my rant on The Ashes. Another thing i'd like to mention is the amazing victory of Japan's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). The LDP, along with its coalition party New Komeito Party, has won 327 seats out of the 480-member House of Representatives. That's an amazing victory, approximately a two-thirds majority. This election saw the highest voter turnout in over a decade - 67.52%. A great turnout and a great result.
The early election was called due to the failure of the Japanese Diet (parliament) to pass Koizumi's bills on postal reform - that being the privatisation of Japan Post. Koizumi dissolved the Diet and called for an election (I think it's over a year before the end of term).
Why was/is postal reform such an issue in Japan? Well first of all Japan Post is a big mofo. It's one of the largest financial institutions in the world. Japan Post is not only a post office but it effectively acts as a bank as well. Having this behemoth being owned by the government is asking for trouble. A big cash cow for the government leads to lots of spending on useless projects (sounds alot like student Unions having a cash cow, the students, to waste money on things that people hardly use). Japan Post, as far as I could tell, was somewhat corrupted as it provided funding for politically-aimed projects... effectively "vote buying" in disguise.
Well done Koizumi.
Skipping the thesis, i'm going to first talk about what happened last night. Australia screwed up bigtime - giving the game back to England by sheer incompetence. Incompetence in playing swing bowling. Going from 2/270 odd to faling short of England's total is really quite poor. It was time for England to have a bat... and what happens - the umpires decide it's too dark for the Aussie pacemen to bowl. Ok, fine.
So what happens? The master, Shane Warne, is brought into the attack - and dismisses Andrew Strauss, 1/2! Not too long afterwards the umpires have another chat and decide to stop play altogether. What the hell? Australia were going to bowl two spinners (only one of which is a real full-time spinner) ... the light wasn't so bad that you couldnt' see a ball being bowled slowly. The English batsmen seemed to be hitting the ball just fine.
I really don't see how Australia had an unfair advantage given the supposedly-low level of light. Rudi, the South African umpire, said that it was highly possible that the batsmen could lose sight of the ball when the ball was being bowled slowly. Really? I'm sure that if that was the case then it would be a loss of concentration rather than due to the light. Even if it was potentially hard to see the ball when batting... then it would be hard for the fieldsmen to see the ball as well? (Potential for drop catches and boundaries due to poor visibility). PLUS Australia was going to bowl a part time spinner - hardly advantageous to the Aussies. I find the whole situation ridiculous - we want a result here... win or lose. Keeping the fight going between Australia and England would have been the best thing for cricket - unfortunately the umpires didn't agree.
So there's my rant on The Ashes. Another thing i'd like to mention is the amazing victory of Japan's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). The LDP, along with its coalition party New Komeito Party, has won 327 seats out of the 480-member House of Representatives. That's an amazing victory, approximately a two-thirds majority. This election saw the highest voter turnout in over a decade - 67.52%. A great turnout and a great result.
The early election was called due to the failure of the Japanese Diet (parliament) to pass Koizumi's bills on postal reform - that being the privatisation of Japan Post. Koizumi dissolved the Diet and called for an election (I think it's over a year before the end of term).
Why was/is postal reform such an issue in Japan? Well first of all Japan Post is a big mofo. It's one of the largest financial institutions in the world. Japan Post is not only a post office but it effectively acts as a bank as well. Having this behemoth being owned by the government is asking for trouble. A big cash cow for the government leads to lots of spending on useless projects (sounds alot like student Unions having a cash cow, the students, to waste money on things that people hardly use). Japan Post, as far as I could tell, was somewhat corrupted as it provided funding for politically-aimed projects... effectively "vote buying" in disguise.
Well done Koizumi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
