Judging from what I’ve read, it seems I am more open than most in thinking there is a credible possibility that the Prime Minister might call an early double dissolution election – assuming the political environment at the time suits it (and assuming he gets a trigger).  A chance to strengthen their Lower House majority while immediately reducing the difficulty in getting measures through the Senate would be tempting.

However, the latest speculation that the government is considering recalling the Senate on or after December 10th so they can get a double dissolution trigger from a second rejection of the private health insurance legislation is ludicrous.  It is hard to believe anyone would treat this story as credible.

Firstly, they would have to get the Senate to agree to the extra sittings, which is highly doubtful. Secondly, it is unlikely the redistribution in New South Wales would have concluded by then, which would mean some unnecessarily messy issues surrounding pre-selections and interim boundaries.

And thirdly, whilst I think the government could call a double dissolution election if the circumstances were right, it is inconceivable that this could ever involve calling an election in December, which would run through Christmas and New Year; or anytime in January while the school holidays were still on.

Given Parliament normally resumes early in February, there is no reason why the government couldn’t wait until then, and put the private health insurance legislation up for debate first. An early election would only work for the government if they were able to convince the electorate it was justified. This could be possible in some circumstances, but not in a situation where the government takes unprecedented steps in an effort to speed up the process.

The situation for individual women seeking an abortion and for doctors prepared to provide it is now totally untenable.

It has now been reported that

Public hospitals in Rockhampton and Mackay are believed to have joined the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital in suspending medical abortions, while a service attached to Cairns Base Hospital is also reviewing its legal position.

…. more hospitals are set to follow and suspend drug-induced abortion services.

Queensland women are now having to travel to Sydney for a medical abortion.

Because this issue will always be treated as a conscience vote, it means traditional party controls and discipline do not apply.

If a majority in the Queensland Parliament do believe that abortion should be illegal, then let them have a vote to confirm that. There would obviously be many people unhappy about this outcome, but at least it would provide certainty and clarity about what the law is.

At present, the legal uncertainty means Queensland has the worst of both worlds on the issue.

Even though the Premier and her Ministers in Cabinet may not be wanting to have a full debate, the Parliament as a whole should have the final say on bringing on any proposed changes to the law for debate. Each individual MP would also be free to move amendments to any Bill that is brought forward.

Cairns-based gynaecologist Caroline de Costa has been writing regularly in Crikey over many months now assiduously documenting the untenable situation which has developed in Queensland following the decision to charge a young woman from Cairns with procuring, and her partner with assisting to procure, her own abortion.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has kept trying to avoid the issue throughout this time, stating that while her personal view is that abortion should be a matter between a woman and her doctor, there shouldn’t be any attempt to change the existing law, supposedly because there wouldn’t be the numbers in the Queensland Parliament for it to succeed.

Personally, I am not so convinced about that, but even so, I don’t see that as sufficient reason not to bring on a debate, which would at least clarify the issue.

This has always been an issue that is treated as a conscience vote by all parties in the Parliament, where traditional party line votes don’t occur. Efforts have been made by some in the Labor Party to introduce a Private Members Bill (i.e. legislation that is not formally produced or backed by the government). This was done successfully in the federal Parliament in regards to RU486, where a Bill sponsored by a Senator from each of the Liberal, Labor, Democrat and National parties.

However, while legislation on a matter which is seen as a conscience vote can be introduced by any MP, the decision about whether or not to allow that legislation to be debated and voted on is still a government decision – unless enough individual members of the governing party willing to defy such a decision, which does not occur when Labor is the governing party.

Even though most surveys suggest a clear majority of Australians support safe abortion being made available to a woman who seeks it, politicians of all parties usually tend to shy away from bringing on debates on the issue. This may be more due to the fact it can be quite divisive within a party, than the fact it can be lead to strident debate within society.

The big benefit of a conscience vote is that it makes each individual member of Parliament individually accountable for what they do. They can’t hide behind the party room or caucus.

There is no doubt this is an issue where have people have very strong and genuinely held beliefs on both sides of the debate. That situation might require a special effort be made to have as respectful a debate as possible, but it is no reason to dodge the debate all together.

ELSEWHERE: ABC reports Anna Bligh’s view that bringing in legislation aimed at clearly decriminalising abortion might end up with the Parliament amending it to create an even more restriction situation than currently exists.  The government instead is planning to amend the Criminal Code “to give medical abortions the same protection as surgical terminations.” Professor de Costa doesn’t sound convinced that this is sufficient.

I assume amending the Criminal Code in the way the Premier has described would also require amending legislation to be brought into the Parliament and voted on, which I would have thought would also open up the prospects of other amendments being moved. However, it’s possible there are some procedural rules in the state Parliament that I’m not aware of which preclude this prospect.

I also can’t see why amending the Criminal Code in the way the Premier is planning wouldn’t also be a conscience vote, given that it clearly relates to abortion, but perhaps there are vagaries of internal Labor rules I’m not aware of.

In any case, given that hospitals are now suspending the performance of abortions, it does suggest that the current “protections” for surgical termination are less than watertight.

* Amanda Greer writes about the issue at New Matilda.

* (26/5) Some more in The Australian, with Logan Hospital confirmed as the fourth hospital to cancel their abortion procedures.  I’m a bit surprised there seems to be more on this issue in The Australian – a nationwide daily – than there is The Courier-Mail, the main Brisbane & Queensland based paper.

Nearly six months later, on May 15 this year, the terms of reference for that inquiry were released by the Minister and Bill Shorten, the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities.

After a further three months, the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration has now announced the formal launching of the inquiry, with basically the same terms of reference as previously released.

It’s taken a while to get underway, but the inquiry has the potential to devise some worthwhile reforms to our migration law and processes. This issue is an easy one to raise populist concerns about individual cases.  However, it is far from easy to define criteria which will consistently and fairly balance the competing issues involved.

Which makes it a good one for a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into, as it should produce richer and deeper details about the impacts and administration of the current rules, the costs to individuals, families and governments and – hopefully – a better and fairer law at the end of all.

The Committee is receiving public submissions until the 28th of October.

This article on New Scientist’s site – “Is Swine Flu a bioterrorist virus?” – is another example.  Having used the headline to pique your interest, the writer waves away the implausible notion of this strain of flu being the result of bioterrorism within the first sentence, and gets on with explaining the science behind the evolution of new virus strains in the straight forward layperson’s style which New Scientist is often quite good at.

And then I read the reader’s comments following the article …………………..

Even allowing (hoping) for the possibility that half the comments are jokes, I can’t even begin to describe the batshit crazy weirdness of so many of them. You’ll just have to go to the site and read them for yourself.  But if these are from people who read science blogs, I don’t want to begin thinking what sort of things people who inhabit other parts of the internet might believe is behind the swine flu outbreak.

It does make you wonder if a side-effect of this particular virus is to make people believe some seriously weird stuff.  Either that or it’s a side effect (or mainfestation) of some of the hysteria surrounding it.

ELSEWHERE:

• Wonkette unveils the real cuprit – Bob Dylan!
• And FirstDog reveals the horror of where it will all end. (unless he’s just trying to throw everyone off his trial – maybe it’s really dog flu, not swine flu)

A sign of the initial success of this campaign is the growing number of governments and political leaders who have signed on to it, making a public pledge to prioritise this fundamental issue and promote policies and devote resources to achieving the goal.  The harder part is ensuring these pledges are followed through and close attention is paid to assessing progress.

Of course it’s one thing to aim to achieve something, but quite another to reach agreement on how to achieve it.

The differences of opinion over the effectiveness of the Northern Territory intervention shows the importance of ensuring enough evidence is collected to impartially assess progress. Unfortunately, that issue has been extremely polarised from the outset. Almost every opinion and piece of evidence is immediately assigned in the pro or anti camp and added to the stockpiles of weaponry each side seeks to wield against the other.

There’s nothing wrong with differences of opinion of course; contests of ideas are an essential part of developing the best policies. But when winning the ideological contest becomes more important than achieving the policy outcome – an outcome which in this case is supported by almost everyone – than it makes it much harder to get progress.

When it comes to the NT Intervention, the evidence and information I’ve paid most attention to is that which comes from people and agencies actually working on the ground in the relevant communities – particularly those have been there working hard against the odds since well before the Intervention appeared.

Even in those cases, there seems to be significantly different reports coming from different communities. This is perhaps not as surprising as it might seem, as there are wide variations in the circumstances, resources, histories and local leadership across communities.

This article from the SMH by Irene Fisher, from Sunrise Health Service in the NT, and Larissa Behrendt, an academic and Aboriginal woman based at UTS, presents evidence of a significant rise in anaemia and low birth weight in babies in the period since the Intervention started.  Sunrise Health Service covers 112,000 square kilometres of the Northern Territory east of Katherine so they are well placed to assess the affects.  The article suggests some of the problems stem from the compulsory welfare quarantining which is applied to almost every Aboriginal community in that region.

By contrast, this report from the ABC quotes federal Minister Joe Ludwig saying figures show that ninety per cent of quarantined income is being spent on essentials.  What may be significant in these figures is that they also include Western Australia and Queensland, not just the  Northern Territory.

In the case of the income quarantining being trialled in parts of Cape York in Queensland, the process is not compulsory.  It is only applied after a decision made by a body called the Families Responsibility Commission, which includes significant input from local Aboriginal leaders.   This report from the ABC’s AM program earlier this week indicated that “about 30 people across the communities have been placed on conditional welfare management, while hundreds more are on voluntary welfare management.”

This is a big difference from compulsory quarantining of the income of every single Aboriginal person in a community. Even with the small numbers who have been subjected to compulsory income management on Cape York, it has only occurred following a defined process which involves the person affected and with key input into the process from senior local Aboriginal figures. That’s a big difference to a bunch of people in Canberra just telling you your income is being quarantined no matter what.

The report also suggests an increase in attendance rates at primary school and a higher proportion of money being spent on food and clothing.

It may be that there are lessons that can be learned from the different approaches being taken in Cape York compared to the Northern Territory, despite the significant differences between (and within) the two places.  We’d certainly have a better chance of assessing those lessons if we could do so without having each piece of information being assessed for its usefulness in a political battle, rather than in the context of a fundamental human rights struggle.

“What Family First has done has actually broken the back of the alcohol hold on Australia,” he said.

WTF?! The distilled spirits industry must really enjoy having their back broken, seeing they have put out a statement welcoming the outcome.

Senator Fielding seems to have use his negotiating position to produce a lose-lose outcome for pretty much everybody, except the spirits industry.  The spirits industry have as much right as any other legal business to make their case of course, but quite how someone who is an anti-alcohol crusader can see it as a good result is beyond me.

There was another vote in the Senate today where Senator Fielding’s vote was also critical which gained far less attention, as it was overshadowed by the Senate’s debates on alcopops and workplace relations.  This was on a motion to allow another debate and vote to be held on legislation which would prevent donations to political parties of up to $100 000 from being kept secret.

Having already used his deciding vote last week to stop this yawning invitation for corruption from being removed – using another curious rationale that a separate and far less serious issue wasn’t also being addressed – the Family First man voted today to prevent this matter being given any further consideration for at least another two months.

Sensible use of Senate balance of power is about assessing how far you are able to use the leverage you have in a particular situation to move things in what you believe to be a better direction, and then assess whether the final result would be a net improvement on where things are now if you supported it. It’s hard to see how either of these outcomes produce a net gain for families – or just about anyone else.