I WRITE regarding the letter Working Women from Stephen Millar (Mail, 27 March).
I first mistook his blatant sexism and disregard for generations of progress in women’s rights for sarcasm and expected the penny to drop as his charming diatribe drew to a close.
However, the closing accusation that the blame for the demise of the eight hour day could be placed squarely on his wife’s “silly notion” to go to work cleared all such assumptions from my pretty little head.
I’m sorry to be the one to have to break the news, but the whole “women belong in the kitchen” thing has been on the out and out for decades.
As for women “taking up paper space” on the train – is he actually serious? Heaven forbid that elbow room be taken up by women – and to think, some have them might have been writing the articles, as well.
And the “crazy desire to want to work”. I’m sorry?
Studying and working out in the real world has given my mother a much greater breadth of experience to draw upon when raising my sisters and I.
Countless women have achieved great leaps in science, medicine, politics, sport, music, literature… the list goes on, with far too many distinguished individuals to mention.
I hope to make a positive contribution to the world I live in, Stephen, and have been blessed with the capacity and potential to achieve a great deal more than domestic bliss.
Alas, your antiquated views on women in the workplace are not going to change my mind. These days, we call your attitudes “chauvinistic” and I assure you I am being polite.
I suggest that next Labour Day you pick up a cookbook, whip up some pancakes for your wife and be thankful that she didn’t push you out of bed a long time ago.
Anna Marnock
Emerald
Civil conscription
HAVING just read Dollars and Sense (Mail, 3 April), I thank Peter Gartlan for bringing attention to this serious matter.
Why does everyone have to be employed to be an accepted member of society?
We cannot volunteer our time anymore as it interferes with Work for the Dole. Volunteering your time is not considered Working for the Dole.
Why aren’t Work for the Dole participants creating and restoring community projects? Because most people are Working for the Dole with private companies who could be employing these people instead.
Some people may think it is necessary to contribute through employment, but if we look at the facts, when the employment figures go up so do our interest rates. In 1946 the Australian people passed a referendum and it was inserted into our Constitution in 1947, section 51(xxiiiA.): The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances. Work for the Dole must therefore be unconstitutional because it is nothing more than civil conscription.
Forcing everyone to work for an employer will lead to an unhappy future for our children. Where do our musicians, artists and poets, just to name a few, come from if they are forced into the workforce as soon as they leave school?
Karu Hewett
Belgrave
Food for thought
LATELY there has been much talk about global warming and what we can do to help prevent it.
While some things are difficult to change, there is one incredibly easy thing that each one of us can do – or should I say, not do – that will save both the environment and our precious water resources. All we have to do is simply not buy animal products.
The extremely harmful effects of the livestock industry were highlighted last November in a stunning United Nations report that said raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. It said that the livestock industry “is one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems”.
Clearing forests to create new pastures is a major source of deforestation, with 70 per cent of former rainforests in the Amazon now turned over to grazing. The forests are the major sinks for removing the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. I saw a poster that stated: “It’s impossible to be a meat-eating environmentalist” and when you consider the above facts, it’s absolutely true.
Jenny Moxham
Monbulk
TIME and again we hear of La Trobe MP Jason Wood’s supposed green credentials emphasised by his “pride” in holding membership of Greenpeace for longer than his membership of the Liberal Party.
While I’m no expert on Greenpeace or the Liberal Party, I do believe them to be separate organisations with differing positions on a variety of local, national and internationally significant issues. I’m curious to know, therefore, how Mr Wood positions himself?
I’d like to know if Mr Wood would sign Kyoto or sidestep it; if he would divest our fledgling nuclear industry or invest in it, and if he chose to invest I’d really like to know where he would put the waste.
Most of all, however, I would sincerely appreciate it if Mr Wood stopped making vacant proclamations during innocuous media appearances and started expressing an actual opinion on issues of relevance to our community and our nation.
I would sincerely welcome it if Mr Wood stopped acting as wallpaper to local happenings and started engaging the community in a genuine discussion surrounding our government’s policies and our nation’s future.
I don’t have a great deal of confidence, however, in hearing this from Mr Wood.
Throughout the last 12 months community representatives have been seeking Mr Wood’s opinion on the merits of WorkChoices; the IR regime that Mr Wood himself voted into existence.
Twelve months without a response, 12 months and counting.
The environment is tipped to play a hefty role in the forthcoming federal election, so I think it’s fair to test Mr Wood’s well publicised Greenpeace association. I think its also fair to test Mr Wood is not just paying political lip-service to ingratiate green-tinged voters.
We elect representatives to represent us. We deserve to know where they stand on a broad range of issues. Why won’t you talk to us Mr Wood?
Matt Posetti
Belgrave
Welfare payments
I WOULD like to respond to the article by Peter Gartlan (3 April) and his claim that the Australian Government is not treating Centrelink recipients with understanding and compassion.
As noted by Mr Gartlan, the aim of the Welfare to Work reforms are to help people move from welfare dependency into a job. But contrary to what Mr Gartlan said, the reforms do this a balanced way and are based on the idea that people should participate to the level of their capacity.
This means that even if you have a disability, we are interested in what you can do, not what you can’t do. If you can work 15 hours a week, the Australian Government will provide support and assistance to help you find work that is suitable for you. In addition, the Australian Government has always had, and will continue to have, a strong income support safety net in place for people who cannot work to support themselves or their family and to help support people while they look for work.
This understanding and balanced approached can be seen in the amount of income support paid. Under the reforms, a single mother with two young school-age children who receives Newstart payment and works 15 hours a week (at the federal minimum wage) would receive around $22,464 in government payments alone. When combined with private earnings, the family income be $31,994.
Compliance is a necessary part of the income support regime and ensures people are not taking advantage of the system. But, the Government has safeguards to prevent people from being unfairly penalised. If individual people feel they are not being treated fairly by Centrelink then I would encourage you to contact me and I will look into the situation on their behalf.
Sharman Stone
Minister for Workforce Participation
