Welcome

Greens' Leader Bob Brown with South Australian MLCs Tammy Franks and Mark Parnell

Welcome to my blogsite.

On these pages you will find my musings on the smorgasboard of SA political life’s debates, debacles and delights – all of course served up with a Greens flavour.

Livestock Bill threatens Animal Welfare Integrity and role of the RSPCA

In an unexpected twist, a Family First amendment to the Livestock (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill that threatens to undermine the role of the RSPCA in the welfare of farm animals has passed the Upper House with support from the Liberals and independent John Darley.

The bill itself was ostensibly an innocuous administrative one, focused on consolidating eight separate acts relating to the health of livestock into one act, supporting national agreements, refining registration requirements and making provisions for dealing with Biosecurity hazards as well as providing for the establishment of livestock advisory groups.

The previously contentious element, the cost recovery for animal health programs had already been removed from the Bill and will be the subject of further consultation.

As such, the Bill was supported by the Greens and, as we understood, the Liberals, as well as the government who proposed it. It was thus guaranteed passage though both houses of Parliament.

It came out of left-field therefore when the Hon. Robert Brokenshire put forward an amendment designed to strip control over the welfare of livestock (essentially production animals such as cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens etc) from the RSPCA who’ve traditionally had that responsibility, to the Department of Primary Industries (PIRSA).

Despite the best efforts of the Greens to speak out against it and siding with the government attempt to ameliorate the amendment, the Family First amendment managed to pass through the Upper House late on Tuesday evening.

History will record that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire’s amendment passed, but only after some misleading information was presented to parliament. (See the Hansard here)

This amendment snuck through, with two members of the crossbenches  absent from the chamber and without full and informed debate.

The Greens spoke against the amendment, highlighting the concerns around having a department like PIRSA in charge of the regulation of the industry – as well as the animal welfare role.

The potential conflicts of interest and/or for “regulatory capture” were not acknowledged, and remain a great concern. As Greens MP Mark Parnell stated at the time : “Regulatory capture … is the issue where you have agencies that are very close to an industry that find it very difficult to then step out of the role of encouragement, education and support, into the role of enforcement”.

It’s the proverbial equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Disturbingly, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire made a number of serious factual errors in his speech in support of the amendment – errors that would if true, have reflected poorly on the RSPCA and potentially damaged their reputation and eroded their community support.   The Parliamentary record was set straight by the Greens the next day when my colleague Mark Parnell had an opportunity to present a Matter of Interest speech to the parliament. But damage has already been done.

Of course we’ll never know whether members’ minds were actually swayed by this misinformation or not on the night, but be that as it may be, the amendment went on to pass by just two votes – with two members of the cross bench absent from the chamber at the time.

The Greens are gravely concerned that having PIRSA in charge of the welfare of farm animals is a retrograde step that could seriously setback the cause of animal welfare in this state. Whilst the RSPCA’s role in safeguarding the welfare of domestic pets will remain, if this amendment is not challenged and overturned, the welfare and living standards of literally millions of production animals could be put at risk.

Luckily, the story doesn’t end here. The Livestock Bill now heads to the Lower House where this amendment is likely to be rejected by the Government numbers in that Chamber .

The Bill may then return to the Upper House for this clause to be reconsidered.

If the numbers remains the same, it could then go to a ‘deadlock conference’ between the major parties to try and resolve any outstanding issue(s).

The good news is that you can help influence the minds of key cross bench Upper House Members who’ve not yet had a chance to have their say on this point.

You can help the RSPCA retain oversight over welfare for farm animals by contacting Dignity 4 Disability MLC The Hon. Kelly Vincent and Independent The Hon. Ann Bressington and making your feelings known that you oppose PIRSA taking over this function.

Time is of the essence so make your views known and act now before this ill-thought amendment becomes enshrined in law.

Equal Rights for Same-Sex Parents – It’s Time!

 My media release to coincide with the proclamation of my Family Relationships (Parentage) Amendment Bill  🙂

 South Australia has finally drawn level with the rest of Australia in granting same-sex couples equal parenting rights, with the proclamation of the Greens’ Family Relationships (Parentage) Amendment Act 2010 today.

Greens Families and Communities spokesperson Tammy Franks, who introduced it into the State Parliament last June, said she was “delighted” now the Act has finally come into operation.

“This is a victory for common sense and decency,” she said.

“This Act finally puts an end to years of discrimination for same-sex parents and ends the stigma of South Australia being the last Australian state or territory to properly recognise same-sex parenting.

“Now both parents are recognised under law, removing the difficulties previously faced by non-biological co-parents such as consenting to medical treatment, signing forms for school excursions, or when travelling alone with their child.

This Act will give equal rights and protections to all children now, regardless of the marital status or sexuality of their parents, and can be retrospectively applied upon request.

“The Family Relationships Parentage (Amendment) Act is simply a case of providing equal rights for same-sex parents and is another welcome step towards gender equality. I commend the members of both the Labor and Liberal parties and those cross benchers that supported the move for their willingness to put aside ‘opposition for opposition’s sake’ and support this Act with the best interests of children in mind.

 “I now look forward to the next step in removing discrimination faced by same-sex couples which can only truly be achieved through equal marriage rights,” Ms Franks concluded.

My speech on the Work, Health & Safety Bill

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:40): I rise to speak on the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011, almost some five or six months after it was first introduced into this place. Far from falling from the sky overnight, I acknowledge that in fact this bill is the result of an impressive initiative which has taken many years of negotiation between all states and territories, stakeholder groups (including unions) and, of course, employer associations.

I indicate that the Greens have strong support for this bill before us today. I will also be moving amendments, but I certainly do not predicate the success of those amendments on support for the bill. The objective of this bill is to have one set of consistent occupational health and safety laws across the nation to cut through the current red tape and regulation arrangements so that employers and workers do not have to work with eight different sets of occupational health and safety laws and regulations, as they currently do.

Members would be aware that there are industries across the country where employees constantly need to cross state borders and are moving from one jurisdiction to another. Having one set of laws, not called ‘occupational health and safety’ but much more simply, I would say, and in plain English, ‘work health and safety’, will increase the productivity of the nation, set higher safety standards and cut red tape. If the opposition supports less government regulation of business, it would be in the interests of their constituents to support this bill.

A number of large bodies and quite credible bodies have conducted economic analyses of the new proposals, including the Productivity Commission, the Business Council of Australia, the Allen Consulting Group and Access Economics. Those reports certainly informed the Greens’ support for this bill. The reports established indicate that the support for a process of harmonisation and the move to simplify regulation by cutting the additional red tape under this new model will, in fact, be good economic sense.

The point has been made that injuries caused in the workplace drive down the productivity of a particular workplace and also impose additional cost to the employers. However, by preventing injuries and implementing higher standards of work health and safety or occupational health and safety practices, employers will, in fact, find that the scheme makes their enterprises more cost-effective, as suggested by the economic analyses of the aforementioned groups.

I would like to make the point here that the nine-page report commissioned by Hudson Howells, which the opposition has been captive to, claims that the costs are estimated to be $1.4 billion to businesses moving towards this harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws. The report has no transparency in its calculations, and it seems to simply be a lobbying mechanism to delay the implementation of this scheme which the employer associations and the union groups had previously agreed to. I suggest that this report not be heavily relied on as its credibility is questionable.

The states will receive financial assistance from the commonwealth when it comes to the implementation of the new scheme, and hopefully South Australia will be participating by 1 January 2012. I think in South Australia that payment is worth some $30 million for all the COAG reforms, but if the minister could clarify that for me it would be appreciated.

As members would be aware, injuries in the workplace can take place at any time and in any form. People in the workplace need to be protected from either a physical or psychological injury—and I welcome the recognition of psychological harm that is contained within this bill, the sorts of injuries that may come about from stress, harassment and bullying—and that is certainly accommodated in this bill, and I do acknowledge that.

I would like to note that when a worker suffers from a severe injury or, indeed, there is a death in the workplace from an accident which could have been prevented, it is the families of those workers who are at the losing end. I cannot imagine looking into the faces of these families and informing them that their son, daughter, parent, friend or relative has died in the workplace from an injury which could have been prevented. If we had to explain to them that that injury could have been prevented had we had better work health and safety laws in this state, I certainly would not want to take on that job of informing those people that their loved one had died.

There are so many cases of workplace injuries and deaths, not only in our state but also across the nation, which could actually be prevented. We must recognise that we have come a long way in the improvement of work health and safety in this country over many decades. That work has come from unions working with employers productively to ensure that the best education and the best information are used whenever possible to prevent injuries; certainly in this case prevention is far better than cure.

Out of respect for the families, I will not address any particular stories in this place. However, I would make the point that we should keep in our minds as we debate this bill the stories of those families, many of whom we are familiar with, who have lost their loved ones, or who have had loved ones lose parts of their lives—whether that is through physical or psychological harm done to them through the workplace—that they will never recover. I will certainly be keeping those at the forefront of my mind as we debate this bill.

This bill contains the introduction of union right of entry in the workplace, According to arguments presented, there are only 100 inspectors relevant for 820,000 workers and more than 50,000 employers and 44,000 work-related injuries in South Australia. Union right of entry, while it does not currently exist in South Australia, certainly does exist across the country.

One of the most interesting spurious debates that I have heard is that we should not be proceeding with this bill today because WA is not going forward with it. If you actually go and have a look at what the Western Australian government has said about this bill—and we all do know that Western Australia tends to be a little bit different from the other kids when it comes to any harmonisation laws—Western Australia has certainly put on record that they are very proud of their union right of entry. They have no problem with that in the implementation of laws across the country and certainly they have stated that they would like to see that union right of entry protected by their state legislation.

Certainly that is not a point of contention from the point of view of WA, and certainly it seems to work elsewhere in the country without the terrible consequences that we are told will result in terms of our introduction of a union right of entry in this state. I think if New South Wales can do it, if Victoria can do it, if Queensland can do it, if every other state and territory except for South Australia can do it, I am not sure that the sky will fall in if we have well regulated and well monitored union right of entry in this state.

At this point I would like to acknowledge a current project that is happening in South Australia that has actually been inspired by the young workers memorial LifeQuilt project in Canada. It is being auspiced under the Working Women’s Centre and it is called the LifeQuilt project. This project has been ‘initiated to pay tribute to those who are woven together in life by a common thread, a fatal workplace injury’. This project seeks to bring families together who have lost loved ones, so that they can take some comfort that their loved ones will be remembered and that there is a movement to ensure that safety is made a priority in any workplace.

That movement is the union movement. I am proud to stand here today and say that the Greens are committed, alongside the union movement, to improving work health and safety in this country and in this state. We all work to ensure that members of our community return home at the end of the day without enduring a preventable injury.

I would like to foreshadow that the Greens have tabled amendments to this bill, and they will in fact seek to restore some of the current protections that we are sacrificing with this move to harmonisation. Again, far from the assertions that we have heard that this is all paying for South Australia and is taking on a whole range of new, supposedly onerous, obligations, we are in fact losing some protections that South Australians currently enjoy. Those protections—and the Greens’ amendments will seek to reinstate them—include the provision of five days training for occupational health, safety and welfare to appropriate people, as currently exists in the entitlement, to ensure that we have workers in our workforce who are aware, alert and actively engaged in the prevention of workplace injuries.

We will also seek to insert the protections around workplace bullying that are currently enjoyed by South Australians. Certainly, our current laws give a nod to that with the use of the word ‘welfare’ in our legislation, in terms of occupational health, safety and welfare, which is a term very familiar to South Australians—a little different to the terminology used in other states. I will, as I have said, acknowledge that the bill does, in fact, contain measures around psychological harm. I would hope that that will go some way to ensuring that workplace bullying is given some due consideration in the implementation of these laws.

We will also have a look at the best practice around the country, and the Greens will be moving to replicate the right of unions and employers—or unions in particular in the New South Wales case—to ensure that those groups have the right to prosecute breaches of workplace safety as they occur. That is something that has worked very successfully in New South Wales, and certainly in New South Wales they have amended the harmonised law to maintain that protection. The New South Wales Liberal government (and I believe this was initiated by the Greens but also has the support of the shooters party and Fred Nile’s group) has seen fit to keep those protections. I will be outlining the ways in which those laws have worked for people in New South Wales when I move those particular amendments.

On behalf of the Greens, I will also seek to amend this bill to insert recognition of industrial manslaughter. I have previously outlined the case for those sorts of laws in my current private member’s bill and, as I say, I do not expect these amendments to get up, but I certainly think they need to be put on the table to give some perspective to this debate. When we are talking about harmonisation, it should never be the lowest common denominator; in fact, we should enjoy equal rights and have the minimum amount of what you could call red tape and the minimum amount of difference between our states, but also afford our own citizens, in whatever state we are, the best of protections within that harmonised system. On those grounds, I do not believe any of those amendments will detract from having a harmonised law.

There is an advantage in improving health and safety in a workplace by allowing a union representing its members into that workplace. When we discuss the rights of unions to prosecute, that will be something on which I will be focusing. Going back to right of entry, I would like to refer members to the second report of the National Review into Model OHS Laws which was prepared for the Workplace Relations Ministers’ Council in January 2009. That report recommended the inclusion of right of entry provisions in the model legislation, so it is little surprise that we have it in the bill which sits before us today. That recommendation stated:

The majority of Australian OHS acts confer powers on authorised representatives of unions to enter workplaces. .. Any union official who wishes to exercise the federal right of entry must apply under and be assessed against the requirements of the federal Act. A permit will not be issued unless the applicant is a fit and proper person. I n deciding that, the Industrial Registrar must consider various matters, including whether the applicant has been disqualified from having a right of entry under a State or Territory OHS law or has had such a right cancelled.

Therefore, the idea that has been floated in the debate on this bill that there will be so-called thuggish union officials storming into workplaces ostensibly to address health and safety issues but using that right to exercise undue power is completely spurious and completely without basis. There is a clear procedure that will have to be followed before these permits are issued. We must remember that at the heart of all this is the role of unions in ensuring that safety concerns for employees and employers are addressed. The rules for exercising a right of entry in the National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws report went on to say that:

…a union official intending to inspect or gain access to an employee record must [actually] give the occupier of the premises and any ‘affected employer’ written notice (and reasons) at least 24 hours before exercising the right. In addition, a permit holder exercising a State or Territory OHS right:

· must not contravene a condition imposed on the entry permit [under] (clause 496);

· must produce the entry permit for inspection when requested to do so by the occupier of the premises or an affected employer (clause 497);

· may exercise a State or Territory [occupational health and safety] right only during working hours (clause 498);

· must comply with any reasonable request by the occupier of the premises to comply with an OHS  requirement that applies to the premises (clause 499);

· must not intentionally hinder or obstruct any person, or otherwise action an improper manner (clause 500); and

· must not misrepresent his or her authority under Part 3-4 [of] (clause 503).

As I say, this is not giving unions carte blanche to simply step into any workplace that they may choose to. There is a due and considered process and, certainly, it seems to work in every other state in this country.

Considerable evidence actually underscores the value of trade union officials being able to enter workplaces to assist in various ways in securing the improved occupational health and safety performance and effective outcomes, particularly when that comes to provision of support to workers who have been elected as health and safety representatives. At the international level, the involvement of workers and their representatives in occupational health and safety is, in fact, mandated by the International Labour Organisation’s Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981. So, these are not new concepts and they are certainly not unique to South Australia.

I would note that Johnstone, Quinlan and Walters have observed that, ‘Participatory mechanisms at jurisdictional, industry and workplace level play a pivotal role in Post-Robens OHS legislation in Australia.’ They point to studies that establish a positive relationship between indicators of objective occupational health and safety performances and workplaces with joint arrangements or union involvement in worker representation or, in fact, a combination of the two. Studies from around the world pretty much show that, where you have got a positive relationship with unions and employers, you actually have positive outcomes both in terms of incidences, but also in terms of awareness.

The Queensland experience of union right of entry provisions under their work health and safety legislation amendment bill shows that the rights have not been abused there. They have ensured that workers have had additional sources of advice on occupational health and safety issues. Certainly, the national model itself includes the adequate checks, balances and requirements for periodical issuing of permits and successful completion of training and refresher courses and the like, as well as, of course, the disciplinary action, if necessary and appropriate. I note that the Hon. John Darley has an amendment with regard to the improper use of right of entry and, certainly, the Greens look forward to being informed about that amendment and possibly entertaining that.

In terms of the use of permits, I draw members’ attention to page 72 of the Fair Work Australia 2009-10 Annual Report and the Fair Work Annual Quarterly Reports for 2010-11. The figures in this report indicate that, in the two-year period since the commencement of the Fair Work Act in July 2009, there have been 2,906 applications throughout Australia for right of entry permits but only one revocation and two suspensions. That is one revocation and two suspensions out of 2,906 applications. Certainly those figures go some way to reassuring the Greens that this does not open up any routes to a so-called abuse of union power. In fact, with that in mind, I think you would go a long way to find similar statistics where, out of 2,906 incidences, there were only three situations in which they had possibly been abused. That is certainly reassuring from the Greens point of view.

At this point, I just want to put on record that this is not about unions versus employers. Yet, often, when we do have discussions about these sorts of industrial relations issues and certainly things like right of entry, it does seem to become quite a polarised situation where people take one side or the other. The Greens do not believe that that is the way forward for Australia. We certainly acknowledge that we have good employers and we have good unions, and we have not so good employers and we have not so good unions. We are not here to prop up either; we are here to see the best outcomes; to see those who go into a workplace come out safe, well and alive.

I would also like to draw members’ attention to the lobbying—and I am sure that most members are probably aware of it—from the Roofing Tile Association of Australia (RTAA). We were certainly pleased to receive information from this association, which was in fact involved for some years in the development of the code related to its industry.

The RTAA members have direct responsibility for the installation of over 90 per cent of tiles through manufacturers, contracting divisions and independent tradespeople. One of the RTAA members also has a nationwide metal roof installation business which confronts the same risks as those on roof tile installation. They pointed out that the risk and potential for injury are the same. In fact, they drew our attention to a recent situation where a tradesperson was killed in Queensland, having fallen 2.8 metres from the edge of a roof.

Had the risk control measures of the new code been in place, this accident would have been prevented. The RTAA had extensive knowledge, and I thank them for the information. They drew our attention to many similar instances that have thankfully resulted in far less traumatic and serious injury, but also to the large number of these incidences that are never reported in the official statistics. The information from the Roofing Tile Association of Australia is something that we have certainly taken on board with regards to the lobbying undertaken from the Housing Industry Association.

The RTAA was certainly very keen to see members support this bill in its current form. The consultation that had been undertaken with them as stakeholders had been many years in coming. In fact, they had been looking to have some specific work done for protection in their industry, but it was folded into this particular bill, and they were quite happy to see the many years of work on their industry acknowledged by them being subsumed by the current bill that we have before us.

Another part of the debate that we have had is the idea that nobody can handle the idea of a PCBU. If we cannot handle acronyms in occupational health and safety or work health and safety, then I think we are in the wrong place. Occupational health and safety or work health and safety are loaded with acronyms and, if people cannot handle a PCBU, then perhaps they are in the wrong place. Whether you like the idea of the language of employers or workers or whether you like the idea of occupational health and safety or work health and safety, the reality is, as we know, that language changes over time. In this case, we are seeing introduced the concept of persons conducting business or undertakings (PCBUs), and it will be the language that will be used across the country.

In terms of getting hung up on the idea that we have a new acronym to contend with, I do understand that the Hon. Terry Stephens does not like acronyms, and I certainly am not a big fan, but I have long since acknowledged that there will always be new acronyms and I will just have to deal with it, so the Greens would say that that is not a point we are going to entertain as a problem with this bill—the idea that PCBU is somehow threatening language.

I have many statistics here, but a lot of them were actually outlined quite ably by the Hon. Kelly Vincent with regard to injury rates and falls from the roof tilers, which have some great relevance, as I say, to the arguments put up against this bill from the housing industry. I will not replicate them here.

I will raise something that has not been introduced so far in this debate. Yesterday, when I was at the Our Work Our Lives mini-conference held at the Australian Services Union (auspiced by the Working Women’s Centre and SA unions, I believe) there was an issue around occupational health and safety or work health and safety that was introduced that I thought possibly should have been part of the debate from the beginning and certainly I would hope would appear in any reiterations of national harmonised law.

This was put forward by the Young Workers Legal Service which, ably led by Nadine Levy and Anne Purdy, has been looking at the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. They have actually suggested that it be put within a framework of occupational health and safety or work health and safety. I have to agree with some of their arguments, and I just put it out there for the minister to take on board for future discussion of work health and safety.

They have been doing quite an extensive body of work on this and they represent young workers, and young women workers in particular; although not exclusive to that group, certainly young women workers do suffer from sex-based harassment in their workplaces. At the moment, the protections are there, but certainly they are not afforded as such through any occupational health and safety mechanisms. They are under equal opportunity and also under the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace programs, and they can go to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as well.

The Young Workers Legal Service has proposed that, perhaps by seeing sexual harassment as a work health and safety issue—and certainly there are areas there where psychological harm and, in fact, potentially other injury can occur—this should actually be reframed and seen in a preventative way as part of the rights of a worker to a safe environment. It would seem to me that some of those many thousands of workers who are sexually harassed in the workplace would prefer the preventative rather than the curative approach. I put that on the government’s agenda for another time to perhaps have a look at that work being done by the Young Workers Legal Service.

With that, I indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill, which I note has actually now been under the auspices of many ministers. A lot of the formative work was done under the former minister the Hon. Paul Holloway, it was introduced into this place some five or six months ago by the former minister the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, has had carriage by the member for Elder (Hon. Patrick Conlon), and currently is re-presented before us by minister Wortley. It has hardly fallen out of the sky overnight. It has hardly come before us without some long period of consultation, of negotiation, of bargaining, of people giving up certain things to get other things.

Certainly, no-one can claim that we have not known that this was coming for some many months, if not many years. There is a great body of work to support the harmonised laws. As I say, a national system in terms of work health and safety can only benefit workers, and one would imagine it would benefit employers as well. With that, the Greens will support the second reading of this bill and look forward to the amendments to be debated in committee. Under all of those ministers, I want to thank Jess Nitschke for being a stable voice and consulting with the Greens all the way through the various ministers and over the various months.

Statement from Tammy Franks MLC Regarding Failure to Lodge Tax Returns

29/10/2011 by Tammy Franks MLC

Yesterday I appeared before the Magistrates Court to answer a charge of failure to furnish documents.

This case was not about non-payment of taxes, or any attempt to minimize or avoid my obligations in terms of tax payments to the ATO.

I stress that I have always paid my taxes through PAYG and have always declared my Tax File number when required.

I have entered a plea of guilty however, as I accepted that I had not fulfilled my obligations to the ATO in terms of lodging my annual returns.

All outstanding returns have since been lodged and I believe I am in fact likely to be entitled to a refund. This of course will go towards whatever fines the Court imposes on me in November.

I deeply regret the chain of circumstances that has led to these proceedings.

Whilst it is no excuse, I have been facing extremely distressing personal circumstances, including a marriage breakdown and family court proceedings which had contributed to my inability to redress this error in the time frame required.

I take sole responsibility for my personal error.

I sincerely apologize to the South Australian public and to my party and my colleagues for any embarrassment that this causes them.

Tammy Franks
MLC

Labels are for jars, not people

My favourite tale of the foibles of focus groups is one where earnest public servants were trying to get their words just right for people over the age of 65. They duly gathered people fitting this description together to ask them what terminology they preferred. “How do you feel when we call you a senior” they asked, “or perhaps you prefer older Australian” and “does the term pensioner appeal or exclude anyone here?” Eventually one man piped up with: ‘Can’t you just call me Barry? That’s what everyone I know calls me.”

Barry’s request, while amusing, gets straight to the heart of the trouble with labels and the real harm of stigma. When we use the label we can miss seeing the whole person.

Labels are very useful…

for jam jars, filing systems and clothing stores.

Where labels become less useful is when they are applied to the human condition. Where there is no such thing as ‘one size fits all.’ That label is never going to reflect the depth or diversity of the person.

But regardless, we label people and of course we even label ourselves.

I’m not sure that will ever change.

When this labelling is constantly negative it can, however, create stigma. Underneath the language of the mental illness labels are the misconceived fears that people might be sad, mad, bad and dangerous to know. Misconceptions not backed by the facts.     

Little wonder then that those with lived experience of mental illness are sometimes so fearful of the stigma of a mental illness itself they are reluctant to seek help for the condition. In fact, many people report that the attached stigma as far more difficult to manage than the illness itself.

There is a better way.

Reducing discriminatory attitudes towards mental illness would mean people would be much more likely to talk about their mental health needs and seek support and treatment earlier. We know that when that treatment is sought and found early there is a significant economic benefit, by reduced demand on crisis point services or productivity loss.

For the half of us who will or have experienced a mental health disorder at some point in our lives we’d probably appreciate the changed attitudes more than any monetary benefits. 

Anti-stigma mental health campaigns are proven to reduce the costs to society of mental illness. In fact, research from the London School of Economics based on the Scottish SEE ME  initiative identified that for every £1 spent on that anti-stigma social campaign there was an economy-wide saving of more than £8. Research on the LIKE MINDS LIKE MINE campaign in New Zealand identifies a similar return on investment.

But even those figures pale in comparison with the benefits of an improved quality of life for people living with mental illness.

To date, New Zealand, Scotland, England, Canada, the United States of America and Ireland have all seen the value in ending the stigma and discrimination of mental ill-health.

This week the Queensland State Government launched the CHANGE OUR MINDS campaign and has invested $8.5 million over the next four years with a challenge to the federal government and also to the other states to do the same.

My question is will the South Australian Government now rise to that challenge?

 If it did, I’d happily file that under the label of ‘Great Leadership’.

Jumps Racing Update

Thanks to everyone who supported my Animal Welfare (Jumps Racing) Amendment Bill to ban jumps racing in South Australia.

The thousands of people who contacted me and my Parliamentary colleagues show overwhelmingly that the community does not support jumps racing. There is no doubt that your emails, letters and phone calls sent a clear message that politicians can no longer ignore.

As you’ll have heard however, my bill did not have the numbers to pass through the Upper House on Wednesday night.   

There are however many positives to be taken from the experience. This is by no means the end of the campaign to ban jumps racing.  It is in fact more like ‘quarter time’ in the game, and there are a number of factors that have emerged that are indeed ‘game changers’.

We have now for the first time on the record the Law Society’s submission that along with supporting the bill, also opined that jumps racing may in fact already be in contravention of the existing Animal Welfare Act section 13 (1) and 13 (2). This salient point was circulated to all MPs and was publicised via a media release that generated substantial media interest.  

I am very grateful to the Animal Law Committee of the Law Society for producing such an extensive submission. This in turn has given the RSPCA (and possibly others) the ammunition to consider a legal challenge to jumps racing.

The public statements from former SAJC CEO Mr Steve Ploubidis openly and aggressively challenging the ‘common wisdom’ of the pro-jumps arguments of the TRSA were also helpful, albeit coming late in the piece.

I was pleased the bill received support from my parliamentary colleagues the Hon Kelly Vincent and the Hon Ann Bressington,  as well of course as my Greens colleague the Hon Mark Parnell.  Comments from Independent Hon John Darley indicate that he is at least open-minded and no doubt could be provided with further information to address his specific concerns.

We have also seen from the comments of the Hon Ian Hunter that the ALP does not speak with one voice on this topic and we now know from ‘corridor conversations’ that he is by no means the only MP that did not share the ‘party line’ (which consisted primarily of a regurgitated version of the Thoroughbred Racing SA (TRSA) “Arguments in Favour of Jumps Racing” document that formed the basis of part of the Liberal response also).

We know too that the Liberals are keen to be seen as animal lovers and this gives us scope to refine our lobbying.

We were also informed by a backbencher that the ALP had not in fact debated the bill in their Caucus (despite it being on the Notice Paper for some months prior to yesterday). Conversations with many members also indicate that current Minister Kenyon’s opinion that the 2001 corporatisation of the racing industry somehow left it above and beyond the law are not shared by all of his colleagues.  In fact, we have received legal opinions from a number of sources that suggests this is simply ludicrous.

The impending change in leadership within the ALP after October 20^th will obviously offer possibilities too for a re-invigorated campaign looking to influence the Premier-in-waiting Jay Weatherill and what will almost certainly be a reshuffled front bench. I certainly hope I can count on your continuing support with this.

It’s been an enormous amount of work to get this far, but this effort has generated the interest and awareness we need to take the campaign further.  

Special mention should be given to the Coalition for the Protection for Racehorses, the RSPCA, the Animal Law Committee of the Law Society of SA and Animals Australia,  all of whom have contributed significantly to the campaign to ban jumps racing to date.

With all these factors combined,  it gives me great hope that jumps racing is now clearly on the wrong side of history. It didn’t get banned on Wednesday, but it has a limited future. The campaign is not over with the defeat of this bill. With your ongoing support we can and will ensure that we will finally see an end to jumps racing here in South Australia in the not-too-distant future.

Thank you again for your support of my bill and the campaign to ban jumps racing.

Tammy x

PS If you’d like to stay in touch with the campaign to Ban Jumps Racing here in South Australia you can join the mailing list for the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses by sending an email to local co-ordinator Meagan:  mlamming@bigpond.com

 PPS If you have not already, you may also be interested in becoming my facebook friend or a following me on Twitter. Tx

 

 

 

Statement on Reproductive Rights

Statement on Reproductive Rights

The Greens have recently become aware of an email circulating making a number of incorrect assertions about Greens policy and intentions regarding the Consent To Medical Treatment & Palliative Care (Termination of Pregnancy) Bill.

I would like to reassure you that the Greens have not done any ‘deal’ with Family First.

We have never and will never give support to any bill to restrict the reproductive rights of women.

News that we are supporting a ‘pro-life’ agenda is nothing more than a cynical rumour that has been circulated for political purposes.

We will always support the belief that reproductive rights are human rights and of course uphold the rights of women to seek free, legal and safe access to abortion without judgment or shame.

We would certainly never support an eleventh hour interference that would attempt to influence the choices of women undergoing terminations.

We believe in a woman’s autonomy and will always support her ability to make informed choices regarding her body and future.

The Greens support access to information regarding a wide range of options for women who should be trusted to seek that information based on their needs and wishes.

For many women, abortion is their preferred option for an unwanted pregnancy. I will continue to champion the rights of women to make this choice without judgment from the community. However, there are some women for whom adoption or foster care may be their preferred choice. I also believe that they need to be supported in this decision and provided with timely, appropriate, and most importantly unbiased information should they seek it.

I am absolutely opposed to the idea of women having information forced upon them in order to influence their decisions at the eleventh hour, and will never support legislation that could lead to this outcome.

Therefore you can be reassured that the Greens will not be supporting this bill.

End this Hideous Cruelty!!

Bound at their feet, they are forced to watch their mates die slowly and painfully in front of them.

One by one, they squirm and writhe in agony as a blunt knife saws back and forth across their throats.

Their scream-like bellows of suffering sound almost human and fill the Indonesian abattoir until just one is left standing.

 The last of the cattle trembles violently. He knows his fate, but is helpless to avoid the same slow and painful demise.

He shakes uncontrollably – his fear is palpable – and it’s as if his heart stops before they even begin making the first cruel cut.

Sitting on the couch, I was writhing and squirming too watching the hideous scenes unfold on last week’s Four Corners program feeling shocked, outraged and emotional.

And the next day the response is incredible – it’s no longer just those “animal-loving Greenies” calling for a ban on live exports, but Australians across the board; from city dwellers to cattle farmers themselves, united in outrage after witnessing some of the most confronting scenes ever seen on Australian TV.

On talkback radio switchboards lit up as caller after caller expressed anger and resentment, confusion, disbelief and sadness on behalf of literally millions of Australian animals who are crowded onto bulk carriers to face a gruesome death in horrifyingly painful and inhumane circumstances.

And they have many questions: how can this happen? Why does it happen? And why is nothing being done to stop it?

For the live export industry, at least, the writing may at last be on the wall.

The message is out there in the mainstream media: overseas abattoirs cannot be trusted to kill Australian cattle humanely.

But the problem stretches further than Indonesia and the killing of cattle and the Government needs to get real about that. These animals might have left our shores, but that does not mean we are suddenly devoid of all responsibility.

Whilst millions of cattle and sheep are sent off on one last terminal voyage, the jobs of Australian meat workers are exported as well.

With each shipload sent thousands of miles away to face an abominably cruel fate, Aussie jobs are likewise sacrificed.

Last year alone 1000 jobs were lost in Australia and the Meatworkers Union say the live export trade is a major contributor.

The chilled meat industry is already worth triple the live export trade, so growing the chilled, frozen and processed meat export trade will only create jobs, value add onshore and maintain economic viability for producers.

It is time to look to win-win solutions and recognise the economic benefits banning the live export trade will have.

Let’s invest in the economic opportunities for Australian workers and stop the cruelty.

It is my great hope that Australians of all political and religious persuasions will unite in supporting a ban on the live exportation of all animals.

Tomorrow I’ll be introducing a motion calling on the South Australian Government to play its part in stopping this cruel and despicable trade. Let’s hope the Rann Government not only watched the Four Corners program, but recognise that this problem stretches further afield than Indonesia, yet the solution can start here at home with us.

Join the National Day of Action to End Live Exports rally in your capital city. The SA event will be held outside Parliament House, North Tce, Adelaide from noon.

Family First Put Children Last

Family First put business interests ahead of children’s wellbeing this week when they voted through Liberal amendments on the Child Employment Bill.

These amendments – which devalue this critical Bill aimed at protecting young workers – reduce the scope of the Bill so it no longer applies to children over 16.

Don’t children of 17, many of whom are working, deserve the same protections from exploitation, unpaid trial work and unfair dismissals?

This bizarre Liberal amendment has tested the party’s resolve, as well as Family First’s supposed ‘family first’ agenda.

One pertinent and shocking example that illustrates an overwhelming need for this Bill is the General Pants debacle, where staff have been forced to wear “I love Sex” badges and T-shirts in their place of work.

The Greens believe that no one should be forced to wear a uniform that makes them feel uncomfortable or degraded.

Yet examples like this were not enough to sway Family First – a party that prides itself on supposedly putting families and children’s interests first.

Of course, workers rights should extend far beyond childhood, and we know examples like the General Pants fiasco may be covered by existing legislation, however further safety mechanisms to protect our vulnerable young people are something the Greens take very seriously. It is unfortunate that Family First and the Liberals are not similarly prioritising young workers’ welfare.

Read my second reading speech on the Child Employment Bill here.

The Final Hurdle Must Fall

Java Star falls at Oakbank. Source: Patrick Gorbunovs/ Sunday Mail

Why is the last hurdle seemingly hardest to conquer?

It’s been 20 years since a Senate Committee report first recommended that State Governments phase out jumps racing, yet South Australia continues to lag behind.

Although the majority of Australian states have banned jumps racing, SA is living in the dark ages on this issue, continuing to allow legalised horse cruelty.

The much-publicised death of Java Star  in the first jumps race at Oakbank on Saturday is a blatant reminder that jumps racing injures and kills.

The Victorian example speaks volumes. Statistics collated over 15 years from 1989 to 2004 show that of the 514 fatalities over that period, the risk of a fatality in jump racing was almost 19 times higher, while head, back or neck injuries were 121 times more likely and catastrophic limb injuries 18 times more common.

There’s no point sugar coating this issue. Jumps racing is legalised cruelty and horses and jockeys alike face serious injuries and even death as part of this so-called “sport”.

Animal rights groups including the RSPCA and the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses are on point in calling for a ban and we can join them by protesting with our wallets.

The Greens called on consumers to show their disgust ahead of the Easter weekend by refusing to bet at the Oakbank races.

Now the Government needs to take a stand on this issue and support the move to cruelty free racing carnivals.

It’s time for the final hurdle to fall, bringing an end to jump racing – and with it continuing horse cruelty – once and for all.