A bloody disgraceful tax

I’m not usually one to play the gender card. Today I do.

Now that we have a female Prime Minister can we PLEASE have the GST removed from feminine hygiene products?

While the broad-based nature of the GST has been, I think, quite a good thing for the nation and for the economy I still struggle to understand the reasoning behind applying the tax to tampons and sanitary pads.

When the GST was first being designed and refined there was great discussion across Australia with interest groups of every kind wanting this, that and the other made exempt. Some were a fair call but others were clearly pushing the commercial self- interest barrow. By and large I think it’s been applied very wisely, very fairly and very well. Except for tampons.

An average Aussie woman will require these products for about one week every month of her adult reproductive life which lasts for about 40 years. It’s more than blood flow – it’s a cash flow!

According to recent research by the Australian Sex Party for the 2010 federal election campaign, that industry is worth about $14 million is GST revenue each year to the government. Hardly a figure any government would want to give up.

Unfortunately the federal parliament decided in 2000 that tampons and pads are luxury items. Female coalition MPs were not happy and tried unsuccessfully to dissuade both the then Prime Minister John Howard and Health Minister Michael Wooldridge. Their voices were joined by senior coalition MPs across the nation, and female MPs generally, not to mention health groups, women’s health organisations, women across the nation and even the Australian Medical Association.

At the time Health Minister Michael Wooldridge caused quite a stir by likening tampons to shaving cream, therefore a bit of a luxury. Dr Wooldridge – you can choose to shave or not? Right? This raised the ire of the female collective but neither he nor Mr Howard were moved.

In an ABC Radio interview on January 25, 2000 Mr Howard said this:

“If you take the GST off, say, tampons, within a few days, I promise you, there will be a group of people mounting quite a respective argument in isolation to take it off children's clothing. Everybody needs clothing. And that argument can be mounted. I mean, our original idea was that you had it on virtually everything.”

Yes, everybody needs clothing but while I can buy second hand clothing or even make some things myself I defy Mr Howard or anyone to suggest I could apply the same reasoning to tampons. Put simply tampons and pads are health items. Without them there would be biological material management issues. Interestingly incontinence products are GST for exactly this reason, so why not tampons?

Is it because blokes can be incontinent too? Surely the implementers of the GST were not THAT shallow!

Mr Howard again:

“There's nothing in front of me that suggests there is any form of discrimination involved of any kind.”

I could probably stomach some of the argument for keeping it on if certain other items also had the GST applied. For instance – herbal medicine, naturopathy, KY jelly, condoms, and the full range of nicotine replacement aids like patches, gum and lozenges.

These come under the GST Act’s “GST-free Health Goods and Services as specified by the Minister Determination”.

Here’s why I don’t think these items should be GST-free.

Complementary health services and herbal medicines: Unlike registered pharmaceutical drugs, most herbal and complementary medicines are ‘listed’ by the TGA, which means their makers pay a fee and are expected to have evidence to back their claims. Listed products are not reviewed by the TGA but are subject to random audits. There’s even a federal government discussion paper out about this because of the concerns around how these products are handled, regulated and marketed in Australia. Until complementary treatments meet the same level of evidence in efficacy as other medical treatments they should not be GST free. If you choose to make use of those services and products that’s your choice - this discussion is not about how well you personally believe your Chinese herbalist treats your digestion issues. This discussion is about tax.

Condoms and lubricants: please don’t tell me these are not luxuries! The only people who require these as non-luxury items are sex workers. Of course I think condoms are important and I’m happy to shout from the rooftops about how well they protect against STIs and unwanted pregnancies. But they are not the ONLY way to avoid those things. If nappies for babies (the result of not using a condom perhaps?) have a GST applied then why shouldn’t the condom?

Of all the exemptions in this particular list the nicotine patches are the ones that really make me angry.

Smoking is a personal choice and there is no way we taxpayers should be watching the patches and the gum and the lozenges go GST-free because a smoker has decided to quit. Good on that smoker, but why shouldn’t the quitting aids have that tax applied? You can fire all the “incentive” arguments at me you like but while they have a choice to smoke or not, I do not have a choice to menstruate or not. Unless I choose to go condom free (which would ironically be GST-free) and get pregnant, but then I’d be stuck with the GST on the nappies... such a vicious cycle!

During the recent election campaign the Australian Sex Party suggested that if an exemption cannot be had then at least have the resulting funds quarantined from general revenue and channelled into research and care around ovarian cancer – after all the ovaries and menstruation go together. It’s not the best outcome, but at least it’s something.

While tampons and pads have new-found fame in popular culture as fun toys for cats or cool stick-on armour you can wear while leaping around the house yelling “schwing schwing” they are not a luxury item. They are a necessary health item and should be listed as such.

So come on Julia – you’re so proud at being the first chick to hold the keys to the lodge, how about you do the one thing every female voter will approve of regardless of their politics and take the GST off tampons and pads. The blokes might even think it’s a good idea too.

No soul music

Who would have thought an atheist like me would be defending the Catholic Church!

There’s been a bit of discussion this week about the decision by the Catholic Church in Melbourne to ban non-religious songs like football anthems and “popular” music from funerals.

Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart told ABC that allowing the funeral to become a secular celebration of that individual’s life should be avoided. This is some of what the guidelines state:

"Secular items are never to be sung or played at a Catholic funeral, such as romantic ballads, pop or rock music, political songs or football club songs."

"The wishes of the deceased, family and friends should be taken into account, with pastoral kindness and consideration. But in planning the liturgy the celebrant should moderate any tendency to turn the funeral into a secular celebration of the life of the deceased."

While I proudly and loudly belt out the Collingwood Football Club song after victories (and defeats!) I can completely understand why the Church is taking what could be seen as a hard line on this. Footy songs do not belong at a Catholic funeral.

The Catholic Funeral in all its glory is not the “celebration of that person’s life” in the secular sense. It’s actually a Requiem Mass for the repose of the soul of the person who’s died. Basically it means a mass to bring peace and tranquillity to that soul.

How do I know? I was raised a Catholic in a family of strong Catholics, went to Catholic schools and as a result attended countless Catholic masses, including plenty of Catholic funerals.

What the Church in Melbourne is saying is this – let me paraphrase for you:

“Look – you’re a Catholic, right? OK. Someone in your Catholic family has died and you want a Catholic funeral? OK. Cool. Here’s the deal though. You’re Catholic so you buy into all that being Catholic means, so if you want a Catholic funeral that means we do it by The Book...and by that I really do mean The Book. OK? Good.”

As far as I can see, if you’re Catholic and you DON’T want to have it done the Catholic way, then DON’T. Have a different kind of funeral. The Catholic Church is quite within its rights to say “you want to be a member of this club, well here are the club rules.”

The Archbishop is right when he says the mass is not a secular celebration of that person’s life. The mass is a very serious and ceremonial occasion steeped in about two thousand years of tradition and is more to do with the intrinsic areas of Catholic faith than the individual in the coffin surrounded by the Altar Boys swinging the incense.

Other faiths have different ideas but the Catholic faith lays its rules out very clearly. Even if you don’t agree with them you should at least respect them if you want to be in that club. You can’t really be “a bit” Catholic.

For Catholics who do want to celebrate the life of their dead friend or relative the right place for that is after the sombre funeral, down at the local Irish Pub where there’ll be plenty of singing and celebration in the equally ancient tradition of the wake!

Dying to talk about euthanasia

Censorship has become a hot topic in Australia over recent months, particularly around the government’s proposed internet filter.

But there’s another censorship matter which cropped up this week.

Exit International is a voluntary euthanasia advocacy organisation headed by the well known Australian, Dr Philip Nitschke.

A few weeks ago you might remember ABC TV’s The Gruen Transfer had two advertising companies “pitch” at the idea of voluntary euthanasia.

Interestingly the winning firm “The Works” was then hired by Exit to make a real ad which was due to screen from Sunday September 12th. According to Exit Internationals’ website the ad was pulled at the last minute after advice from Commercials Advice (CAD) which is a classification body.

Here’s what the Exit website says:

“By Friday the Ad had been banned on advice from Commercials Advice (CAD) lawyer, Alison Lee.

Ms Lee alleges that the Ad which was approved by CAD at pre-production and post-production stages for airing on TV, breaches s2.17.5 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice' Suicide: Realistic depiction of methods of suicide, or promotion or encouragement of suicide'.

Even more offensively, in her email, Ms Lee continues "We have considered that an advertisement for voluntary euthanasia is a promotion or encouragement of suicide as voluntary euthanasia would be considered to be a subset of suicide." (Exit underline not mine)

Exit has heard many arguments against VE, but never one as left-field as this one.

The ad is an expression of free speech & political communication. The ad directly addresses the government and calls for legislative action. To argue otherwise suggests that CAD has an alternative agenda to censor important political debate on the issue.”

I’ve watched the ad and it’s about as inoffensive as an ad can get. The man in the ad is an actor, not someone who’s actually suffering from a terminal illness. It’s on message but not in-your-face. To be honest it’s easier to watch than a Harvey Norman or Joyce Mayne ad!!

Why shouldn’t Australian audiences be allowed to see this ad?

I’m sure it would be screened at a suitable time to avoid those awkward questions from six year olds, and would hopefully encourage some sensible debate in this country about such an important topic.

Given research shows a majority of Australians support the concept of voluntary euthanasia (Newspoll: nationwide trends show 85 percent support and the figure is rising, approx five percent over two years), just who would be offended by an ad seeking to lobby government?

Let’s not forget the federal government has seen fit to step in on this before.

The Northern Territory parliament supported a Voluntary Euthanasia Bill in May 1995. BUT at the instigation of Liberal MP Kevin Andrews, a Bill to overturn it was introduced to the federal House of Representatives in September 1996. The Senate passed the Bill in March 1997 and the NT’s decision was overturned. That decision also impacted on the ACT’s rights.

Overturning the pro-voluntary euthanasia laws had support from all side of politics and from the Prime Minister (then John Howard) down. This DESPITE the overwhelming evidence that Australian’s want this right.

During the legislation’s short active period four people used their right to die with dignity.

It seems an advertising campaign designed to lobby government on behalf of the tobacco industry (a series of ads attacking federal government plans for plain packaging under the umbrella of the Alliance of Australian Retailers but funded by tobacco giants – news reports Sept 10, 11, 12 2010), but it’s not OK for the voluntary euthanasia lobby to do the same thing.

One could argue a bit of hypocrisy here – after all, one side kills people slowly over many years and costs the health system and the community millions and millions of dollars while the other would kill people quickly and peacefully at a time of their choosing, and funded by the individual concerned.

Let’s show some courage as a community. Broadcast the ad and have some sensible, adult discussion. And after that’s done, let’s ask the people of Australia.

If they support the idea of voluntary euthanasia with the safeguards required to prevent abuse then how dare ANY politician step in and stop the wishes of the people.

Patently wrong ***updated***

Who owns you?

When should a company be able to own a patent over something which exists naturally? Never.

This week the ABC’s flagship investigative journalism program 4 Corners took at look at gene patents. For most Australian’s this issue isn’t even on their radar – but it should be.

There’s a landmark legal action in Australia at the moment challenging a patent over breast cancer gene BRCA1. It comes not far behind a similar action in the US which found no patent should have been granted in that situation.

The reason for the court action is to remove patents from human genes. And rightly so.

A patent means protected ownership for a defined period of time and includes exclusive use and ability to prohibit use or development by others.

You might be surprised to learn that around 20% of human genes are patented in Australia, so this case will be watched closely by all sides and around the world. It will have significant impacts either way.

The argument from the biotechnology companies is that a lack of patent protection over the genes will limit their enthusiasm for research and innovation. They say that if they can’t patent genes – not just human, but plant genes and most other biological material – they won’t be able to cash in on the commercial windfall of any product they develop in relation to that biological material.

I’m a big supporter of enterprise, investment and innovation but I struggle to see why the companies are fighting so hard here. No one is seeking to stop them patenting and protecting their research product – in other words any “tests” or products etc derived from their work around the genes or other biological material.

If they’ve invented a treatment or an identification test or whatever then they deserve the benefits from that and they also deserve the commercial protection a patent provides so they can maintain a good portion of the market before others who haven’t done the early leg work can cash in, riding on their coat tails.

BUT patenting a gene is wrong.

Patenting biological material that already exists in a particular form in nature is wrong.

Patents recognise invention – not discovery of something which already exists.

A genuine invention should get all the protections it can, and if a large corporation happens to be that inventor then good on it and may it protect its interests with all its might. The great thing about patents is they protect the little guys as well as the big guys.

But a patent should not apply to a discovery. Imagine the world if all the past discoveries in the natural world were owned by a company rather than just being part of the human knowledge bank.

These biotech companies did not INVENT the genes they fight so hard to patent. They may have DISCOVERED them and deserve the due rewards, but they should not be able to patent them.

In Australia we’ve already had many gene patents, and there’s already been controversy around the breast cancer gene.

The Australian company which has the gene licence here “gifted” the intellectual property rights to BRCA1 and 2 to a couple of research institutions (including a specialist cancer research institution) and didn’t charge them royalties. That was nice of them.

But then a couple of years later wrote to the institutions threatening legal action and told them to stop testing for the genes in at-risk women.

Public outcry nipped all that in the bud, thank goodness.

There are some serious ethical issues which must be dealt with if we are to continue patenting genes, including the ownership of that genetic material when it occurs inside or outside the human body and the voluntary donation of tissue rather than any form of tissue harvesting to secure genetic material.

Informed consent is crucial for people who may have tissue collected, and I do mean INFORMED. Fully and completely so there is no grey area.

So think of all the genes that make you who you are.

Now imagine that one of those genes has been isolated by a biotech company and is then used to develop a crucial test or treatment for a particular disease or illness.

They patent that gene.

How much could your tissue be worth to a company? Could they, in years to come if substantial protections are not in place, demonstrate that you are in possession of their material if you carry that gene?

And when you pass your genes to your children…who owns their tissue?

And your grand children?

Footnote:

The Australian Senate has been investigating some of the issues around gene patents through a Senate Inquiry, which should report soon on its findings now that we have a government.

The inquiry began in November 2008 and was due to report late November 2009. The reporting period was extended three times, then put on hold completely from July 19^th 2010 because of the 2010 federal election.

Is this important matter getting timely attention, especially as the legal clock is ticking both here and in the US?

As at September 8^th 2010 no reporting date has been set and according to the Committee Chair, Senator Rachel Siewert the committee will reconsider the issues of this inquiry in the event that it’s re-referred to the committee in the new parliament.

He's not the Fuhrer - he's just a very naughty boy

A primary school in Western Australia was forced to apologise to parents after a student dressed as Hitler won first prize in a costume party.

They didn’t have to apologise because his costume was somehow lacking – only because he was dressed as Hitler...for a “Character of History” dress-up.

According to the news reports some parents at the Catholic school also made complaints about others dressed as a vampire and Grim Reaper.

Now while Hitler won’t be on my list of people to catch up with for coffee he is an important historical figure. Clearly that meets the brief!

He was extremely intelligent, a great orator, very charismatic and quite the visionary for his country – everything from industrial modernisation and civil improvements to massive infrastructure builds and even being cited as one of the people who had a say in the design of that marvel of German engineering – the VB Beetle.

Why shouldn’t someone dress up as Hitler for a costume parade about famous historical people?

The school should not have to send a written apology to parents, although maybe an informative and age-appropriate bit of class time about Hitler would be a wise move so other students (and perhaps some parents) have some facts and context.

What’s truly concerning about this is why some parents would obviously like a particular version of history to come through for the students. You cannot wipe significant individuals from history simply because you don’t like them.

Remember the furore over rumours Time Magazine might name Osama Bin Laden “Man of the Year” complete with cover photo, in 2001? They eventually shied away from him and went with NY Mayor Rudi Giuliani instead. Personally I think that was a cop-out as “Man of the Year” (forget the gender issues for a moment please!) is supposed to mark that year’s most influential individual regardless of the nature of that influence.

Ironically Hitler made it to that famous cover in 1938 so I reckon he’s very fit for this school activity!

And what about the vampire and Grim Reaper dress-ups?

Donning the cape, fake fangs and running around yelling “I vant to suuuck your bloooood!” in a cheesy Transylvanian accent, is one of life’s great joys for children (and for some adults). It’s getting involved in a little bit of fantasy where myths and monsters come to life in a way they can’t hurt you.

Why contaminate that with the unimaginative, rigid and often oversensitive, sullen adult view?

For goodness sake – it was COSTUME PARTY! How very boring if people only ever dressed in things which were completely safe. Part of being in a costume is to have fun and enter a world of make-believe, however small or subtle.

We spend enough time as adults treading carefully to avoid offending anyone about anything at anytime. How about we let our kids dress their lives in more than the beige and black/white we have to contend with.

We wouldn’t want to start telling these kids they aren’t allowed to dress up as a vampire or the Grim Reaper because they go to a Catholic school would we? That would be a little Christo-fascist and even Hitler might give that the thumbs up.

Diamond or cash wedding anniversary?

Happy anniversary darling, now where's my money?

We’ve finally reached the point of pure silliness when a suggestion to pay people money to stay married is taken seriously.

August 13^th is apparently National Marriage Day (I didn’t remember it, but then I sometimes forget my actual wedding anniversary as well) and two groups hit the Australian headlines with a proposal of a ‘marriage bonus’.

The Australian Family Association and the National Marriage Coalition had their bit of fame on ABC News Breakfast.

Mary-Louise Fowler is the AFA’s vice president.

"People who marry and stay married, and bring all these benefits to society and go to that effort, are in fact pretty much ignored and treated just like everybody else."

“Treated just like everybody else”. Important phrase.

I might be really missing the mark here, but why should being married entitle you to any further special treatment – like cash bonuses? And I say further because science has already shown us that generally speaking married people are happier, healthier and live longer than singles (sometimes their spouses might prefer it to be different though). Being married already has that benefit. Then you have the tax benefits of being married, co-contribution for superannuation etc, shared wealth in asset building. The list is quite extensive really.

The AFA also wanted the proposed parental leave benefit of 18 weeks at minimum wage to be paid to stay-at-home mums because they didn’t qualify as they weren’t in the paid workforce, and that was unfair (media release from AFA and Kids First Australia May 19, 2010). They have a plan to re-jig whole system and then scrap the baby bonus.

In this case they WANTED people to be “treated just like everybody else” and obviously the baby bonus must have been the wrong kind of bonus.

Certain groups felt the baby bonus would be abused as people chased the almighty dollar and had babies just for the cheque. It wasn’t nick-named the ‘plasma bonus’ for nothing…

So why a marriage bonus?

I don’t mind governments providing the odd safety net, especially in a wealthy nation like ours. Protections for those on very low incomes, a helping hand for the unemployed and those unable to fund their own retirement etc.

Then there are there other kinds of ‘helping hands’ like various rebates and bonuses for just being normal. The aforementioned baby bonus is a big one as is the rebate for private health insurance.

We live in a society where we choose our marriage partners (yes I know there might be the odd arranged marriage in this country but by and large we pick our partners). Sometimes it lasts and sometimes it doesn’t. Surely the Australian Family Association and the National Marriage Coalition wouldn’t want people to stay in a marriage simply to get the bonus. Would they?

Sure, it would make our statistics look great! The divorce rate would drop, single parent families would become fewer and we would appear to be a nation with a very stable family life. On paper at least.

The AFA recognises that a marriage is a voluntary contract between a man and a woman. So why would my tax dollars go to reward them on their choice? I don’t get a bonus for staying healthy and not using the health system (shhhh, that might be next) or a bonus for keeping my cats in an enclosure so they don’t kill heaps of native wildlife.

Interestingly the Australian Family Association’s own guidelines don’t support their idea either. As quoted from their website as part of a definition of family:

“The maintenance of the family should be the financial responsibility of the father and not of the State.”

I guess they just haven’t updated their website to add “…except for a tax-payer funded bonus for staying married.”