Dr Lynette Dumble
Global Sisterhood Network
She
is a member of the Boston-based Committee on Women, Population and Environment,
and the Amsterdam-based Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights, a past
state president of the Australian Federation of University Women and University
College at the University of Melbourne, and is active in a number of movements
challenging the assumptions of globalization, biotechnology, militarism and
religion in relation to world peace, Indigenous and Women's rights, public
health, food security and environmental safety.
She has a major interest in women's health and has published more than 500
articles in medical, scientific, environmental and political journals and in the
print and electronic media, on diverse subjects ranging from the cultural,
political, scientific and social discrimination against females from conception
to grave to transplantation immunobiology, biotechnology, and medical ethics.
Commentaries by Lynette Dumble:
18 August 2010
The Choice: A woman with an eye for the future, or a man with his head in the
past
Since assuming the Labor Party’s leadership, Julia Gillard has contended with
every aspect of the genderized intolerance anticipated, with the media preying
on her appearance, clothing, relationship, and speaking style, rather than her
intended policies for a second-term Labor Government (1). In stark contrast,
Julia's alternative in Tony Abbott has stumbled through four weeks of
campaigning with the media paying shallow attention to his dubious political
promises, and zero attention to the personal aspects of his attire and
elocution.
As the campaign enters final days, Julia has grown in personal poise, and likely
inspired public confidence, with her robust televised performances, and her
party's realistic political promises on climate change, economics, education,
health, immigration, population, pay equity, transport, and water.
Within this same time frame, Abbott's credibility has seriously waned (3). His
parental leave scheme, in itself a seismic shift from the Liberal Party's
free-market philosophy, is opposed by MPs from within both parties of the
Liberal-National Coalition. Already causing consternation in safe Liberal seats,
this Abbott-trumpeted policy has also been slammed by the Business Council of
Australia.
The Abbott-led Coalition has also driven the sustainable population bandwagon,
conveniently overlooking the fact that since the 1990s the Coalition had
promoted mass immigration on economic grounds. Highlighting the Coalition's
immigration flip flop, just seven months ago Abbott was proclaiming that "a
higher population has been consistent with a better life for most people".
Abbott's tax policy is at best thin, and contains what Australia's foremost political correspondent, Michelle Grattan, describes as "a silly measure"(3), this being a ''tax receipt'' for the taxpayer so that he or she is aware of how many of their tax dollars were spent on education, housing, industry assistance and other areas of government spending. If the promised ''tax receipt'' is to be comprehensive, this amounts to being a lengthy document, but what can Mr. or Ms Taxpayer do about government spending on, for example defence, of which they happen to strongly disapprove, or non-spending on, for example Indigenous health, of which they would strongly prefer? A year after the fact, not a solitary thing other than to keep in mind come the 2013 Federal Election.
Aside from his past anti-abortion and work choice baggage, failure to commit to
pay equity, threats to reduce, or even eliminate for a lengthy period, the
social security of the unemployed, and an irrational scepticism on climate
change, Abbott has regularly executed new blunders in the past six weeks.
Amongst his most foolish was his vow to cancel Labor's $43 billion Broadband
infrastructure program, and replace it with a vastly inferior $6 billion
alternative, the intention being to cut spending rather than prepare for the
future at a time when Broadband is increasingly the backbone of the 21st-century
economy. After stumbling to answer questions on this policy when interviewed on
the ABC's 7.30 report, Abbott then incorrectly claimed ''Just as the Prime
Minister says, I say as well, I'm no Bill Gates here and I don't claim to be any
kind of tech-head in all of this,''. To set the record straight, this response
from Julia Gillard was in answer to a question regarding internet filters, not
broadband (4).
In the recent words of Sharan Burrow (5), former president of the ACTU, and
currently head of the Brussels-based International Trade Union Confederation,
"The Labor government investment in broadband also means jobs, lots of jobs.
Tony Abbott on the other hand is set on destroying jobs when the economy is
still vulnerable. With cuts of 25,000 jobs in broadband, 12,000 jobs in the
public sector, fewer nurses and healthcare professionals with his cuts to
Labor's health initiatives and a multiplier effect that could see these losses
trebled in the private sector, this is not the leader for Australian workers".
So there we have it: Julia Gillard, a woman with an eye to the future, or Tony
Abbott, a man with his head in the past, namely the economic rationalism of the
Howard days. The choice belongs to the nation on August 21, but there are clear
lessons from Britain where the election of a conservative Coalition has in the
space of just 100 days led to the further economic and social marginalisation of
women, children, the poor, and migrants (5).
References:
1. Liswood, Laura. Women in power and the battle facing Julia Gillard. The
Guardian, London, Saturday August 14, 2010, page 23.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/13/women-power-julia-gillard-australia
2. Grattan, Michelle. Coalition draws a long bow. The Age, Melbourne,
Friday August 13, 2010.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/coalition-draws-a-long-bow-20100812-121io.html
3. Aly, Waleed. Coalition cracks show as populism reigns. The Sunday Age,
Melbourne, August 8, 2010.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/coalition-cracks-show-as-populism-reigns-20100807-11pib.html
4. Coorey, Phillip. Abbott's devil lies in the (lack of) detail. The Sydney
Morning Herald, Wednesday August 11, 2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abbotts-devil-lies-in-the-lack-of-detail-20100811-11ywz.html
5. Burrow, Sharan. Victoria a key battleground. The Age , Melbourne,
Friday August 13, 2010.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/victoria-a-key-battleground-20100813-122yh.html
6. Editorial.
Dangerous echoes of Thatcherism.
The Independent, London, Monday, 9 August 2010.
4 July 2010
The Feminine
Face of Australia’s National Obscenity
Back in 2008, Labor's White Paper on the subject of homelessness, which was
described at the time as "A National Obscenity", prominently exposed the full
extent of the problem and articulated the urgent need for wide-ranging
responses. This was the first time since Federation that a Government of any
persuasion had disclosed the scandalous truth of the number of Australians who
spend their lives without a safe roof over their heads.
Although the overall rate of homelessness has remained relatively stable over
the past 12 years, increasing numbers of children, families and older
Australians today find themselves in this situation, with our Indigenous
over-represented in the population without a home. Entitled "The Road Home“
(1), the White Paper estimated that on any given night 105,000 Australians were
without a home due to multiple factors: the shortage of affordable housing, long
term unemployment, mental health issues, substance abuse and family and
relationship breakdown, while amongst homeless women, domestic and family
violence [read *men’s domestic and family violence *] was the chief reason for
their tragic plight.
Labor's "Road Home" made a unique commitment to respond to the nation's
homelessness via three strategies: First, by Turning off the tap via
early intervention services aimed at preventing homelessness; second by
Improving and expanding services which provide sustainable housing, improve
economic and social participation, and end homelessness for their clients; and
thirdly by Breaking the cycle for those who become homeless by moving
them quickly through the crisis system to stable housing with the support they
need so that homelessness does not recur.
Decades of neglect mean that solutions will not be instantaneous, but Labor’s
three strategies aim to halve overall homelessness, and offer supported
accommodation to all rough sleepers in need, over a period of 12 years.
A recent survey conducted by Homelessness NSW (2), an NGO working to achieve an
Australia where no one experiences homelessness and affordable housing is
available to meet demand, confirmed what feminists have long suspected, i.e.
Australia’s National Obscenity has a feminine face. To quote Sue Cripps, CEO of
Homelessness NSW, "Workers in the sector are increasingly seeing that the face
of homelessness is older and female. Older women are invisible
- on the streets, parks and public spaces they keep a low profile to
avoid both the law and lawlessness" (3).
The older homeless woman's invisibility, unseen on the male-preferred park
bench, means that she doesn't count in the national statistics. A range of
reasons account for her homelessness - often disadvantaged by caring for
children, she faces an interrupted work career, and as a result a reduced income
and superannuation, and fewer job options. Divorce too frequently leaves women
financially worse off than their former male partners, while, as confirmed in
The Road Home, escaping male domestic violence and abuse is a
fundamental driver of women's homelessness.
Back on June 24 when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister, she praised her
predecessor Kevin Rudd's determination to health reform, combat homelessness and
close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. As our
elected-Prime Minister we can therefore anticipate her continued
determination to pursue justice regarding these issues, and for homeless women
that means the creation of special services which cater for their needs. In Sue
Cripps' words "Homelessness is no picnic for anyone but older women do it
particularly tough. There are few services designed for older women. There are
no female-only boarding houses. Women in their 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s are forced
to become nocturnal, grabbing sleep during the day to stay awake and avoid the
rape, violence and crime that often comes at night".
Labor’s Minister for Housing, Tanya Plibersek, also demonstrated the Gillard
Government’s ongoing efforts to address the nation’s homelessness with an August
5 announcement of the building of 1170 new homes across the State of Victoria,
which though not women-specific, will cater for those on low and moderate
incomes who are struggling to find a home within their budget (4)
In contrast, while Labor's strategies for reducing the nation’s homeless were
supported by former opposition leaders Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull, the
current Liberal leader Tony Abbott has failed to commit to the targets, and
appears unwilling to do so. On that note, a win for Labor on August 21, and
Julia for PM, will be a positive step for the nation’s homeless, and an urgent
requirement for our sisters who find themselves without a place to call home.
References:
1. The Road Home - The Australian Government White Paper on Homelessness
.
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx
2. Homelessness, NSW.
http://www.homelessnessnsw.org.au/
3. Cripps, Sue. Homelessness has a female face. The Age, Melbourne,
Tuesday August 3, 2010.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/homelessness-has-a-female-face-20100803-1147x.html
4. Williams, Erin. New homes for Ballarat's low income earners. The
Courier, Ballarat, Victoria, Thursday August 5 2010.
18 July 2010
A
Feminist Future
Julia Gillard's replacement of Kevin Rudd as
In the month which has followed, it became plain that
Gillard was heir to a perilous hangover from the previous Labor Leadership in
the shape of the proposed Super Tax for Mining Corporations, and alternatives to
Howard's still lingering, and widely unpopular, Pacific Solution to
asylum-seekers and Northern Territory Intervention policies. Along with these
issues, the Rudd Government's delayed initiatives to combat climate
change strengthened the possibility that Gillard's inheritance was a
poison chalice.
The daggers for Gillard's throat were rapidly sharpened
over the ensuing four weeks, their wielders ranging from Tony Abbot, leader of
opposition Liberal Coalition, to Nine's political editor Laurie Oakes, to the
ultra-conservative director of the Sydney Institute Gerald Henderson, to the
hoard of journalists feeding at the National Press Club’s patriarchal trough.
Nonetheless, Julia Gillard has proven over her years in
Parliament that she has the spine to absorb the venom, and importantly survive
in a political environment which is shamed by its hallmark culture of hatred.
Consistent with her survival spirit and courage, on July 17
she asked
the Governor-General to
dissolve the House of Representatives so that elections for the House and half
of the Senate would take place on Saturday, August 21.
In her own words after casting the Federal Election die,
"Now at this moment there is clearly an opportunity for us to look forward in
this nation.
Within that address to the nation, Gillard made it
abundantly clear that she is prepared to continue Australia's evolution into a
more compassionate and environmentally-caring society, the latter evident from
her agreement with The Greens over the past weekend, and the former promoting
hope for a rethink of the Howard government's plans to build a receptacle for
low and medium-level radioactive waste on Aboriginal land at Muckaty Station in
the Northern Territory, and a further unravelling of the Northern Territory
Intervention scheme - none of which are remotely possible under a Liberal
Coalition Government.
Julia Gillard may not be a radical feminist, but she is
very definitely a feminist, and her promotion to elected Prime Minister is a
strong positive step towards creating a feminist future for the country.
Diverting Australia’s Military Budget to defend against Climate Change
My recent positive opinion
of the 2010 Federal Budget with respect to Climate Change pre-empts the need to
join the dots between the environment and Australia's military economy.
To begin, our projected
military expenditure in 2010 runs at $73 million per day, amassing a grand total
of close to $27 billion within the space of the current year. Australia's
Medical Association for the Prevention of War(1) recently compared our military
budget with that of the United Nations where the total funding of all
activities, including the secretariat, peace keeping forces, the World Heath
Organization, and its multiple supplementary agencies, is a mere $us30 billion
annually. While paling to insignificance compared with US military spending, the
Australian defence budget nonetheless indicates that we have joined the big
league when it comes to military extravagances, and as a result have staked a
claim to making a significant contribution to climate change via energy
intensive and/or carbon emitting military-related missiles, machinery, transport
and infra-structure.
Similarly, the decadence of
Australia’s Defence Budget is also demonstrated when seen alongside the
estimated cost of the Millennium Development Goals: In brief, where $us135
billion is anticipated sufficient to eradicate global famine and poverty,
provide universal primary education, significantly reduce maternal death and
child mortality rates, promote environmental sustainability and set several
other essential priorities, including the empowerment of women, notably in
countries where to this day women have no rights whatsoever. Together these
goals are anticipated to directly improve human survival, and to indirectly
strengthen international security.
Additionally, Australia is
actively involved in the manufacture of military weapons and machinery, and is
amongst the world's leading suppliers of uranium, some of which is traded to
countries who are armed with nuclear missiles.
At a point in time when the
adverse effects of climate change are already upon us, Australia has an
outstanding opportunity to show leadership by backing away from both armed
conflict and the global arms trade. That in itself does not mean unemployment
for the thousands within our defence forces. Instead the skills of these
highly-trained men and women can be diverted to addressing crucial environmental
issues on home soil, with their activities abroad restricted to peace keeping
when and where warranted, and to climate change-related emergencies in
neighbouring countries, notably within the Pacific Islands.
It does not require
mathematics of Pythagoras proportions to envisage the reduced national defence
budget, and environmental benefits, which would result from Australia's
disengagement from war activities, but it does require a level of courage which
is unprecedented in a world where military intervention has become the
broadly-accepted substitute for diplomacy. Is that too much to ask of our
political leaders in return for a world where peace is the alternative to
conflict, and the risk of climate change-related catastrophes is diminished
rather than amplified? I would like to think not!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reference:
(1) Vision 2030 : an
alternative approach to Australian security. MAPW 2010
A publication of the
Medical Association for the Prevention of War (Australia)
http://www.mapw.org.au/files/downloads/Vision%202030%20web%20version.pdf
Climate Change and the Budget
The 2010 Australian Federal Budget provided
further insights into the nation’s political approaches to the Climate Change,
arguably the major issue of the Third Millennium.
With respect to Climate Change policy, the Rudd
Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was placed on hold in mid April
of 2010 following a second rejection in the Senate. Instead, as an ongoing
commitment to addressing the perils of Climate Change, the 2010 budget commits
$30 million to funding a national community education program on the subject via
print, radio, television and electronic media, the cost of which is to be met
from within the existing Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio. Despite
an absence of bi-partisan co-operation, and muddled thinking within the
Opposition’s Coalition ranks, it therefore appears fair to conclude that all is
not yet lost in this direction!
Of equal, or perhaps greater importance in light
of the ever-increasing reports of the climate change-related disappearance of
small island territories, the 2010 Budget commits
a further $178.2 million over two years to the International Climate
Change Adaptation Initiative. This builds on funding announced in the 2008-09
Budget [$150 million over three years] for tactics designed to adapt to climate
change.
In addition to supporting efforts under the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change to identify new and innovative measures which minimise the financial
downsides of climate change in developing countries, the
2010 Federal funding accordingly aims to enhance the assessment of
climate change impacts in neighbouring countries via cutting-edge scientific
data, so that each may plan and invest in essential adaptation courses when and
where appropriate.
Focusing on countries in the Pacific and small
island states, the 2009 and 2010 budgets also include
finance to
strengthen Pacific meteorological services in partnership with New Zealand and
Pacific Island countries, as well as Grants for Australian and International
non–government organisations for the building of new and existing climate
adaptation approaches in
co-operation with local organisations in the Pacific region and East Timor. In
the context that women have borne
the heaviest burdens [in terms of mortality, morbidity, and violence]
stemming from climate change-related natural disasters, the Rudd Government’s
investment in community-based strategies increases the opportunity to place
gender perspectives to the fore of climate change adaptation measures in our
region.
Moreover, the ultimate value of Australia’s good will expressed toward smaller and less economically advantaged nations in our region may well prove profound. To paraphrase Mary Robinson, former president of the Republic of Ireland and UN Commissioner for Human Rights, “… for the first time in human history, the richer parts of the world are dependent for their future survival on what happens in the poorest parts. It's no longer about compassion and philanthropy - it is in their future self-interest to ensure that the poorest have access to every available climate change strategy."
2 April 2010
Dominant issues crying out for courageous policy
Australia’s
impending Federal Election of 2010 provides unique opportunities for political
parties to express leadership at national and also international levels. The
dominant issues crying out for courageous policy include Aboriginal Sovereignty,
Climate Change, Economic and Employment Stability, Health Care, National
Security, and Water Resources. Amongst these central issues, the dots which link
Climate Change with National Security highlight an importance which cannot be
ignored.
Already in
2010 the world has witnessed a series of natural disasters which can be seen as
linked to Climate Change, at devastating levels in Haiti and Chile, and also,
though with far less to even zero human impact, in Indonesia, Japan, New
Zealand, the Philippines, and Tonga. To date, though the year is still young,
Australia has escaped with a minor 2.3-magnitude
tremor striking bayside Pearcedale, 47 kilometres south-east of Melbourne, on
March 25. More pressingly, as scientists have warned, Climate Change is also
likely to place Australia directly at risk of a new order of fires which strike
with sufficient ferocity to engulf entire towns lying in their path. This we
have already seen in rural Victoria in February of 2009, with further close
calls averted in the summer of 2010. The question therefore arises, is there a
government policy which can reduce Australia’s contribution to Climate Change
while simultaneously lessening the nation’s risk from natural disasters?
The answer is unequivocally yes. Although minor, relative to
US and British military operations, our present involvement in Afghanistan, and
beforehand in Iraq, is part of a global war economy which is an underestimated,
but highly significant, factor in climate change.
A pacifist policy, withdrawing our troops from all regions
of military conflict, presents as a ground-breaking opportunity to make a stand
against the world’s missile sponsors who rather than placing faith in diplomatic
solutions, either invent, sell, or drop bombs capable of massive destruction in
terms of human and animal life, vital constructions, and landscape.
It is a fallacy that truth is the
first victim of war. Rather, despite military boasts of “smart bombs”,
civilians, in the main women and children, are the first and continual victims
of armed conflict. Hence, a pacifist policy would attract women voters, and
indeed all peace loving citizens within the electorate. At the same time, a
pacifist stand would free our women and men who have chosen military careers to
engage in vital homeland projects, for example in the protection of rural
communities, their homes, animals and surrounding bushland during periods of
high fire danger, and in the creation and/or restoration of water storage assets
to counter drought. And lastly, should an Australian Pacifist Policy catch on at
the international level, Mother Earth would be given a breather from assaults
with today’s multi-tonned missiles, perhaps making her less prone to expressing
the tsunami-magnitude disturbances which have claimed thousands upon thousands
of lives in recent years.