It Takes A Village

Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm has thanked Australia’s childless workers for paying more than our fair share of tax so that others can be compensated for reproducing. At face value, it’s a generous and utterly surprising view on the position of a mute minority.

In Australia, women without children are still looked on with suspicion. We’re bizarrely unfinished, incomplete, incapable, barren, lacking in some way – and that’s just the ones who can’t have children. 

Those of us who can have kids, yet have made a conscious choice not to, are infinitely worse. We’re deliberately eschewing our sacred duty to bear children. We’re selfish, greedy bitches or cold, conniving career women. We're denying our femininity and our purpose. And that’s exactly the criticism we need when we’re sitting alone in our ugly pyjamas, staring blankly at god-awful reality television, or working til midnight in appropriately sterile city offices. Take your pick of the various stereotypes. We've heard them all.

A little appreciation goes a long way. 

"To the childless people of Australia, I want to say, on behalf of this Parliament, thank you for being childless. 

"You work for more years and become more productive than the rest of Australia. You pay thousands and thousands of dollars more tax than other Australians. You get next to no welfare ...  

"But you pay when other people get pregnant, you pay when they give birth, you pay when they stay at home to look after their offspring ..." 

The Liberal Democrat said that he was sorry than instead of receiving thanks, Australians without children were "often ignored, pitied, considered strange, or even thought of as irresponsible". 

Senator Leyonhjelm’s startling speech earlier this week was only the second time I can recall hearing any politician even acknowledge the existence of childless adults. The first time was when Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan claimed that Julia Gillard was unqualified to be Prime Minister because she didn’t have children. The terminology was “deliberately barren.” Charming.

So here we are, with the sole Liberal Democrat Senator who appears to have some kind of sympathy regarding the financial burden placed on the childless. Introducing the video of his speech on Facebook, the Senator explained.

"This is my speech on childlessness; it's gone 'viral', as they say. I delivered it in the period leading up to passage of the government's 'No Jab No Pay' legislation.

In it, I point out just how much taxpayers' money parents of children receive, money they ought not expect. I go on to thank the childless, who pay more tax, receive less welfare, and worse, get no thanks for their generosity."

I sincerely appreciate the good Senator’s thoughtfulness. Actually, I appreciate that he thought about us at all. It's been all about "working families" and "Australian families" for so long, it's easy to forget that we exist.

Factually, he’s right. People without children do pay more tax because obviously, we don’t qualify for baby bonuses and tax benefits and various other small acts of government munificence. We don’t get family leave when the kids are sick, or performing in school choirs. We are expected to arrange our annual leave for outside school holidays so that people with “families” can take those times off. We’re asked to work those hated shifts on public holidays for the same reason.

And according to Senator Leyonjhelm, Australia owes a debt of thanks for the sacrifices we make. We share the twin burdens of watching others play with their bouncing bundles of joy (and dodging waves of relief that we don't have to deal with poo and tantrums) and we pay the parents to feed, clothe, house, educate and generally raise their little blessings.

I know quite a few child-free people, and never once have I heard anyone grizzle about the lopsided tax burden we carry. Some of us definitely whinge about working on Christmas Day yet others are quite content to pick up their well deserved penalty rates. Each to his own.

And while the pity party for the childless is in full voice, let’s not forget the crushingly familiar strains of every childless person’s favourite chorus: “Who’s going to take care of you when you’re old? You’ll be all alone!” 

This morning I attended a business meeting where over 80% of the attendees were stay-at-home-mums. Many had brought their younger children with them to the meeting and I was reminded of my decision to remain childless

Hey Senator Leyonhjelm! Remember all that extra tax we paid? All the sacrifices we made in favour of parents who needed to be with their children during illness, during triumph, during the milestones of a young life? All the public holidays we worked so "families" could be together? 

That’s the price we pay - all of us - for living in a society where, in theory at least, no-one is left behind.

I have paid my child-free, benefit-free taxes, and I haven't complained more than anyone else because in twenty or thirty or forty years, the children my peers have housed and clothed and fed and educated and loved and moulded into mature, caring adults – all with the help of my taxes - will be building the retirement villages and nursing homes where I’ll live. They’ll be the medical staff who trained for years to understand the mysterious workings of an aging body, and if necessary, they'll be the carers who'll bathe me and feed me and wipe up the drool and god knows what else. They’ll be the overpaid politicians making the decisions that effect my standard of living, and they'll be the teachers and parents of the next generation because life goes on, even if my genes don't. 

Senator Leyonhjelm has no children.

Revenge of the Atrophied Uterus

Anyone who has spent any time on Facebook or Twitter will know how quickly a conversation, a joke, an issue can explode into open hostilities. Social media is not for the faint hearted, as Brisbane Instagram model Essena O'Neill learned the hard way. Apparently it's too difficult to maintain the myth of perfection for hundreds of thousands of adoring followers.

I inhabit a different online world, where school friends, former co-workers and buddies from thirty-odd years of working, and various other friends and members of my extended family rub along fairly well together. They tolerate my predictable political and social outbursts, and I accept stories of their bizarre dietary preferences, endless photos of kids and pets and hobbies, and whatever else is important to them. I like most of these people, and I'm interested in their lives.

I've only ever blocked two people on Facebook. One is my ex; the other is a former school friend who went way too far in her public criticism of me. I took it personally because it was personal. The public spat came on the heels of months of bizarre and increasingly hurtful behaviour from her,including her unwelcome commentary on why my relationship had failed. I made a reasoned decision that her brand of toxic "friendship" was no longer welcome in my life. I don't regret the decision, although I wish it hadn't been necessary.

Yesterday, someone else, a complete stranger to me, was having her own social media crisis. The ABC had picked up on some research conducted in Perth,  about how childless and child free women are treated in a society which expects women to reproduce.

The ABC posted the question on their Facebook page, and being child-free and 50, I posted a listicle of things that have been said to me, or about me, as a result of being nullipara.

This is my reality, and the reality of many childless women.

Here are few things I've learned about myself, a childless woman, aged 50. 

1. I don't WANT children? There must be something wrong with me. Emotionally. ALL women want children.

2. I must be barren. Physically.

3. I'm probably gay.

4. I'm not a real woman. 

5. I have failed God by not having children.

6. I couldn't possibly understand how a mother feels.

7. I know nothing about anything to do with anyone under the age of 16. I never will.

8. I have no right to hold or express an opinion on anything to do with anyone under 16. These topics about which I may not hold an opinion include education, vaccination, baby massage, toys, after school care, the Family Budget, children's entertainment, the park, the pool, pets, normal Australian families on Struggle Street, stranger danger, food additives, nappy rash, Disney bandaids, tantrums and the universe.

9. I'll be lonely. I should've realised that.

10. I'll be sorry.

11. I have no patience.

12. I have no right to be tired.

13. I have no right to complain about anything. Ever.

14. I may not take leave from work during school holidays; those dates are reserved for parents who need the time off.

15. I'll have "women's problems" later on because my body hasn't been allowed to do what it was designed to do.

16. I suck.

Amidst a reasonable number of likes and comments and additions to my list, a stranger named Jessica added her two cents worth. Jessica is a mother of three, and her brief list of what she has learned makes for dull reading.

Was I supposed to laugh? Offer practical advice? Commiserate? Sympathise? 

Social media is about engagement, so I engaged. No sympathy here, though. I responded with neutral acknowledgment. I agreed that she needed a shower, and told her that I hadn't been to Europe either.

But Jessica thought my brief response was lacking.

In a sea of heartfelt agreement and good-hearted banter, Jessica unknowingly proved my point. Apparently her confession about Europe and personal hygiene were deeply important to her. My shallow quest for a cheap laugh had undermined her inner conflict. I was the living embodiment of ignorance and insensitivity. I am proof that people without children don't understand the important issues. We are just too smug with our sophisticated, smudge-free lives to care about her wretched existence. 

A rare moment of social media sanity erupted as I chose not to tell this Mother Superior to get some professional help - cleaner, babysitter, parenting expert, psychologist - or to check if she'd lost her sense of perspective in the toy box. I left it alone, and pondered the likelihood that the gulf between parents and non-parents might be too wide to cross after all.

Jessica had shared something of herself with me in telling me that she longed for a shower, and when I failed to respond appropriately, she labelled me as a tired stereotype, sarcastic and unaware. 

And while I've had enough of this special brand of discrimination, I resisted posting a caustic retort. The no-mans-land between motherhood and unfulfilled maternal potential doesn't need any more social media grenades.

Here's the response I didn't post on Facebook.

And this, Jessica, is exactly what most of us in this discussion are talking about: this assumed superiority that because you have a child or children, you are in a morally superior position to those who don't have children. You have assumed a divine right to put me down in public because you think I'm not a parent and therefore could not understand your malodorous torment.

By the way, if you don't think that childless women - and men - are hurt every time we are admonished or belittled or dismissed for failing to achieve our biological purpose, you need to reassess your people skills.

I wasn't planning on playing this stupid little game of "Who is worse off", but as you've waded in, I'll share some of my truth...because the list of common insults I posted above isn't enough. (You might want to put the children to bed and sit down with a glass of wine.)

My gut reaction to your comment is this: Don't you dare lecture me or anyone else on how tough your life is because you have children. Don't you dare even suggest that your self image, your relationship with your gender, is shattered because you need a shower. Unless you sincerely regret having children, and wish they were gone, just don't go there. 

Because the truth is that you *can* have a shower. In fact, you did. If you're ever that desperate again, you can call on friends or family or your partner or neighbours (yes, even the ignorant lesser beings without kids) to watch your little ones while you spend ten minutes alone in the bathroom.

But you see, I won't have a child. Ever. And while I've never wanted to be a mother, part of me wonders if you're right. I know that you've experienced things I can never experience, profound, emotional personal motherhood stuff that will never know. Maybe those experiences make you the 'real woman' I will never be. 

But none of that gives you the right to preach at me, or lecture me, or pity me or try to undermine my life.

And in any case, my grown-up life is none of your damned business. 

As for Europe, if that's really the pinnacle of your dreams, I feel sorry for your children. Do they factor in anywhere, or are they just small, inconvenient barriers that keep you from your  raison d'être.  I look forward to you telling your children how complete, how sated with life you feel, now that you've basked in the warmth of a Tuscan summer and and shivered within the solid bank of mist laying over a Scottish Loch. Will you embrace the Eiffel Tower when you get to Paris?

But don't mind me. I'll just be over here, sitting on the naughty step, wondering what gives you the right to make me feel like I failed at life.

Enjoy Europe, won't you, dear?

The Welcome Mat

 Australia is a proudly multicultural society which has welcomed and accommodated refugees in need for more than seventy years. It started with the “Ten Pound Poms”, a wave of immigrants escaping Europe after the Second World War. So valuable to Australia are these people, the Australian Government under Prime Minister Chifley established the Assisted Passage Migration Scheme, where adult fares were subsidised to £10 and children, including future Prime Ministers Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, travelled for free. Such was the welcome and the promise offered by Australia.

As Prime Minister Abbott announced this week that Australia would accept twelve thousand refugees from Syria on humanitarian grounds, a new round of conversations was sparked in communities around Australia. It’s all very nice to be generous on behalf of our nation, particularly when the problem is on the other side of the planet, but are we willing to accept newcomers into our communities…or are we ruled by the NIMBY* response.

These local conversations are playing out on social media, and in local newspapers and in offices, around dinner tables and over the back fence, where those who welcome refugees are at odds with those who believe that Syrian refugees are someone else’s problem. The Syrian refugee crisis has been building for some years, but it's only been in the last few weeks, since hundreds of thousands of refugees have flooded into Europe that the problem has been widely recognised. Prior to this, the bulk of Syrian refugees were housed in massive camps in neighbouring Middle Eastern countries.

Source: Amnesty International

On Facebook there was a call from one man in the Manning Valley of NSW, where I grew up, asking if his area should accept around 400 refugees. The current population of the Manning area is around 49,000, so 400 refugees would increase the population of the area by less than 1%. This is a similar proportional increase to that proposed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has committed her country to take 800,000 refugees. Germany’s population is around 82 million.

Of course, there are those who reject the possibility of accepting Syrian refugees into their community. The major objection has been that the priority should be on assisting the homeless who live on the fringes of our communities. It’s a fair argument, yet Australia has the resources to aid both groups. The difference is that homeless people in Australia tend to be the victims of poverty. Syrian refugees are not escaping poverty; they are escaping a brutal civil war between ISIS and the Assad regime, both well-resourced and not above using chemical weapons.

Australia has an overwhelming capacity to deal both with the disadvantaged at home and those who arrive seeking protection from overseas. The two problems have no correlation. There is no reason to expect that if the numbers of asylum seekers were to reduce so would the number of homeless and disadvantaged in Australia. Yet even if resources were stretched, a humane refugee policy is more cost effective than mandatory detention and offshore processing. So the best way to conserve resources to deal with Australia’s disadvantaged groups is to adopt a more humane approach to asylum seekers.

Others have commented on countless Facebook pages that with Australia’s rising unemployment, we can’t afford to bring in more people, particularly those who might be unskilled and not speak English. They would add to our national welfare burden while contributing nothing to our society. The facts are that an increase in population increases demand – for food, for housing and household goods, schooling, medical care, support services, transport. As these services are provided by local businesses and government agencies, jobs are created and the local economy benefits.

Source: http://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MythBusterJuly2013FINAL.pdf

Entire cities and towns in Syria have been destroyed; entire populations have been left homeless. That includes the doctors, teachers, engineers, gardeners, managers, farmers and artists. It is folly to assume that refugees would simply increase the number of unemployed in the community.

And while on the subject of unemployment, let’s hose down some common misinformation right now. Emails have been circulated and posted on social media for over a decade, telling inflammatory stories about refugees in Australia receiving so much more in government allowances than our aged pensioners or unemployed people. The email is rubbish. It originated in Canada in 2004, and even then, it was based on a misunderstanding of the Canadian payments system. It is entirely irrelevant in Australia and should be disregarded.

The fact is that refugees in Australia are entitled to the same social security payments as any other Australian citizen or permanent resident – no more and oftentimes less. Asylum Seekers and refugees in detention receive no benefits at all. The major difference within the community is that new Australians are usually subject to a two year waiting period, but in the case of refugees under humanitarian settlement plans, the waiting period may be reduced, if all other criteria is met. Refugees are assessed by Centrelink in the same way as any other Australian citizens. There are no extra allowances or subsidies provided by the government to refugees. 

Once asylum seekers are grantedrefugee status, they are entitled to the same rights and incur the same responsibilities as other Australians. No more, no less. While there have been a number of concerns raised within parts of the Australian community that more assistance is provided to refugee entrants than to other Australians such as pensioners or the homeless, as the Department of Immigration clearly states on its website, “there is no truth to these claims.”

-          Asylum Seeker Resource Centre

Of course, many of the negative sentiments around Syrian refugees relate to religion and culture. Syria was created less than one hundred years ago and its population, which was around 18 million in mid 2014, includes many religiously and ethnically diverse groups – an optimistic melting pot of Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Turks and others, with an uncomfortable combination of religions, including Sunni Muslims, Christians, Alawites, Druze, Mandeans and Yazidis. The majority of Syrians belong to one of the Muslim subgroups, with around 10% of the population identifying as Christian and 3% as Druze. Unsurprisingly, various groups have been at war on what is now Syrian ground for at least 3,000 years. Of the 18 million people living in Syria in July 2014, it is estimated by the UNHCR that close to 7 million are now classified as ‘displaced persons’.

Refugees from Syria in a Jordanian refugee camp

Some community leaders, including politicians Senator Cory Bernardi, federal Liberal MP George Christensen, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher, and the Australian Christian Lobby have suggested that Australia should prioritise Christian refugees for resettlement over Muslims. This is simply unacceptable when statistically, at least four in five Syrian refugees are Muslim, and all are being persecuted.

Unfortunately there is widespread ignorance regarding the impact of the Islamic population in Australia, and terms like Sharia Law and Halal are used with little understanding of what they mean. While Australians believe that Muslims make up 18% of the population, the reality is around 2% - a number far less threatening, far less able to make a dent in the essence of Australian society than the 18% that so many believe. 

With around 7 million ‘displaced persons’ as a result of the civil war in Syria, Australia has a global responsibility to contribute to resettlement. Since the Second World War, we have always accepted refugees and they have made positive and lasting contributions to Australian society. We are privileged to live in a wealthy country that can afford to offer assistance, and to do anything less than welcome Syrian refugees into our communities would reek of greed, xenophobia and selfishness. More importantly, rejecting the opportunity to help Syrian refugees would fundamentally change the nature of the country we have become.

* Not In My Back Yard

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

For the second time in a month, the Coalition Government is facing the reality of one of their appointments being described as untenable. As was the case with former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop, the honourable Dyson Heydon AC QC is taking time to consider his future as the Prime Minister refuses to sack him. Mr Heydon’s decision was expected today, but he has asked for more time to ponder his position.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has praised Dyson Heydon’s impartiality and professionalism, British Libertarian Brendan O’Neill described the scandal surrounding Heydon’s ongoing role as Commissioner as a ‘’storm in a teacup” and conservative commentator Chris Kenny is trying to draw comparisons between Heydon’s speaking engagement at the Garfield Barwick Address and every other speaker ever to appear at a political gathering.

What is so damned important about the Trade Union Royal Commission anyway? Why does it matter if the Commissioner agreed to speak at a function associated with the Liberal Party?

Winners and Losers

The political stakes associated with this particular Royal Commission are manifest. Established by former Governor General Quentin Bryce at the request of the newish Coalition Government, the terms of reference (Letters Patent) for the Trade Unions Royal Commission invite inquiry into the financial dealings and rigour of governance of “employee associations”.

The benefit of illuminating the inner workings of unions and exposing wrongdoing is an undeniable benefit for all Australians. The political fallout is likely to benefit only one side: the Coalition government, which hopes the Royal Commission will unearth a veritable avalanche of dirty deals involving the Labor Party.

The significance of a Coalition Government inquiring into the business dealings of various unions lies in the origins of federal politics in Australia. Generally speaking, the Australian labour movement can be divided into two areas: the trade unions, and the Australian Labor Party. Both sides emerged from the state based labour movements in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The symbiotic relationship between the unions and the ALP has continued unbroken for over a century, with the unions being a primary contributor to the success of the ALP. Obviously, any inquiry into the financial affairs of a trade union will find multiple touchpoints between the unions and the ALP.

Whether the Government’s primary objective in establishing the Royal Commission was to bury the Labor Party is open to speculation. Perhaps it’s just a fringe benefit. The reality if that any adverse findings by the Royal Commission will reflect poorly on the Labor opposition. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the Liberal Party to keep the Royal Commission running for as long as possible. Similarly, it is potentially to Labor’s benefit to discredit the Royal Commission, particularly as so many prominent Labor politicians have backgrounds working with various unions.

Above Reproach

If the outcome of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption was not as politically significant, a loose association between the Commissioner and the political party currently in government might be excusable. Lawyers and judges have an affiliation for politics, and few judges of Heydon’s stature would have been able to avoid having friends in political positions, attending political functions, working with current and future politicians.

In this instance, Heywood has admitted that he was aware that the Garfield Barwick Address was a function arranged by the Liberal Party. It may have slipped his mind, as he has suggested, but he knew it – and frankly, with Sir Garfield Barwick’s ties to the Liberal Party, it would hard to imagine that he would not have known. Even had he not known, professionals on the speakers’ circuit like to know certain details before they accept a booking: who is arranging the function, who will gain from it, who is attending…these are standard questions that he should’ve asked.

And that’s only the Garfield Barwick Address. There’s also the fact that Heydon was on the selection committee that awarded the Rhodes Scholarship to none other than Tony Abbott…the Prime Minister whose government requested the Royal Commission Heydon now heads.

There’s also Heydon’s record while on the High Court: he dissented in about 40% of opinions, most notably when he favoured the tobacco industry, which has been a financial supporter of the Liberal Party.

Could these be a string of coincidences? Absolutely. Is the combined weight of these instances enough to raise the possibility of bias? Again, absolutely yes.

Julian Burnside, a noted progressive legal mind and activist, has again praised Heydon’s record and his integrity, but Burnside has also stated that Heydon should stand aside. A life beyond reproach is not enough to protect Heydon when the perception of bias has been raised. Heydon himself has said so.

"The law compels judges who have such a bias or may reasonably be thought to have such a bias to disqualify themselves (from sitting on cases)."

The Heydon Singularity

Conservative commentator Chris Kenny is trying his best to compare the Unions Royal Commission with other Commissions. Quite simply, there is nothing in the same class as this. The political context of Heydon’s Commission sets it apart from, say, the Royal Commission into Institutionalised Abuse of Children. Adverse findings against a church or church-run charity operating schools and homes for children are as inevitable as they are appalling, but do not have the political ramifications of the Unions Royal Commission, despite the Prime Minister’s links with the Catholic Church.

Nor can Heydon’s role in the Unions Royal Commission be compared to Gillian Triggs’ role as President of the Australian Human Rights Commission or Tim Wilson’s position as Human Rights Commissioner. The Coalition Government has tried to tarnish Professor Triggs’ reputation with accusations of delays and bias. As abhorrent as her findings are, they are largely non-political. The same can be said of Tim Wilson. He is a former executive with the Institute of Public Affairs, an organisation strongly aligned with the Liberal Party policy, but his role as Freedom Commissioner has fewer partisan touchpoints.

Counting the Cost

Estimates for the cost to taxpayers of this Royal Commission range from $67m to $121m, but the cost to Australians is far greater than what we can count in monetary units.

As Heydon was another of the Prime Minister’s infamous Captain’s Picks, the questions raised here cast further doubt over the Prime Minister’s ability to make sound decisions. Is the Royal Commission anything more than a political witch hunt, with a handpicked Commissioner predisposed to favour the government? Or is it simply a personal gesture from Tony Abbott to thank Heydon for a dubious Rhodes Scholarship?

The left will also sustain damage if the Royal Commission is discontinued. The one benefit to Labor and the unions from this Royal Commission is that after the final report is handed to the Governor General, the left would’ve been able to say that they had been meticulously prodded and probed via a Royal Commission, and any adverse findings had been dealt with, leaving a demonstrably clean operation. This would draw a line under the murkiness of ALP-union dealings over the past two decades, and allow the Left to move forward. Furthermore, it will rob the right of their ability to smear Labor because of their union connections. If this commission is abandoned, that opportunity is lost.

Regardless of which way Heydon decides to go, the final insult is the additional cynicism this Royal Commission adds to Australian politics. If Heydon stays, it will be under suspicion of bias. If he goes, his Royal Commission will have been an immense waste of time and money to snag less than a handful of minor scalps.