It’s a well known fact that women’s faces faire worse than men when it comes to the ageing process. Ten years ago, just knowing this caused stress, the idea of terrorists entering our lives also caused stress. Today terrorism has become a real part of our lives, along with the over-all cost of living. Now we can also add Melbourne’s transport crisis to the list. As a women living in Melbourne I’m not sure how much more stress my face can take?

Melbourne’s public transport usage filtered the news today, with patronage hitting an all time high. According to Premier John Brumby in the last year alone there have been an extra 25 million passenger trips (1).

However, the public transport debate in Melbourne has been raging for decades. Some of its main criticisms include the over-burdened, under-funded and lack of investment in vital rail extensions in outer suburbs with its focus on trains, trams and buses.

The increase of patronage on public transport has been hailed by the Premier as a successful step for Victoria. However, what’s not a success is the Premiers lack of dedication and funding to further improve Melbourne’s transport system and infrastructure. This improvement could result in an abundance of success for Victoria in more ways than one.

For many Australian one of the most stressful issues of living in today’s society is the ever- mounting price of petrol. Public transport is a more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly alternative to petrol-driven cars (2). As a result, to combat this issue or ease the pressure the Government could be investing in more sustainable transport solutions. A piece in onlineopinion.com highlighted this debate.

One of the main benefits of public transport for society is its reduced cost compared to other forms of transport. The Public Transport Users Association (PTUA) compared the cost of running a used car to that of everyday public transport use. The findings revealed that cars ‘running on the smell of an oily rag’ can cost over a thousand dollars more than the most expensive Yearly Metcard (3). This alone could be reason enough to increase patronage of public transport and urge governments to improve infrastructure and services. Unfortunately, only one in five people living in the heart of the city where transport is in abundance choose to take it (4).

The lack of enthusiasm for public transport can come down to the need to upgrade the current public transport system. Some upgrades could include; reducing current ticket prices, which do not ‘fare’ when compared internationally, the Canadian city of Vancouver for example delight in half the cost of Melbourne’s ticket prices (5). Other much needed improvements include the increase of transport networks in the urban fringe of major cities.

The lack of Government investment in vital rail structure is contributing to increased congestion, frustration and pollution. For example, thanks to the Brumby Governments latest plan to divert traffic congestion in Melbourne’s Eastern suburbs we have the Eats-Link Freeway. Now, not only has the Government invested billions of dollars into the project at the expense of public transport, but we have the ability to maintain car dependency for a generation to come (6). As a result Public transport is now almost non-existent in Melbourne’s Eastern suburbs.

The need to restructure and revolutionize the transport system and its economy in Victoria is indisputable. Changes made to the current system could lead to a reduction in traffic congestion, climate change and the cost of fuel prices. Not to mention a step in combating the increased amount of stress in our lives. I don’t know about you but all of these problems are definitely at the top of my ‘Issues that make me stressed list.'

During the course of his speech last night (twenty minutes, with no notes - ``He's still got it in him! He's still sharp! No notes!'' breathed my neighbour, admiringly) Howard made much of the resilience of the Australian economy.

He credited it to the ``twenty-five years of reform'' this nation has experienced.

It seems that he is trying to avoid standing in the spotlight alone - on anything other than economic issues, his legacy is pitiful.

(On economic issues, it's negligible.)

The state parliament of Victoria is this week expected to vote on a change in the legislation that currently crimimnalises abortion. But while John Brumby as well as Ted Baillieu and his deputy, Louise Asher are all expected to support the change, a handful of politicians, not surprisingly male, are still opposing de-criminalisation. 

While the new legislation, if introduced, would be historical, it would hardly be radical. The issue of abortion in Victoria is at the moment surrounded by quasi-legislation, in theory making abortion criminal while in practise silently supporting around 20 000 abortions every year. From a law enforcement point of view, problems are likely to arise whenever quasi-laws, such as the current law on abortion, are put to the test by courts. Judges are often forced to rule in favour of written legislation, even if this legislation oppose common believes held not only by the judiciary, but by the majority of the population. 

Interestingly few areas of the legislation are as ambiguous as the ones concerning conscious termination of human life. In many countries, including Sweden, suicide is ironically a crime in the eyes of the law (so far this one has proved hard to implement). Few countries, Switzerland being one exception, have legalised euthanasia (assisted suicide) even if such a change is largely supported by terminally sick people and their families in many European countries.  

As if implemented to guide our moral and ethical believes rather than our actions there is a sense of fear behind all these regulations. An underlying feeling that if we were left without their guidance, we might instantly loose our perception of right and wrong, the idea of a super-ego being merely a Freudian fallacy.

In preparation for the possible law reform John Brumby asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission for advice on how to modernise the law to successfully make it legally accessible without increasing the number of abortions carried out in the state. This worry of Mr Brumby’s unfortunately reflects the perception of countless of (predominantly male) Victorians both inside and outside parliament. The worry that women allowed to terminate a foetus in the case of an unwelcome pregnancy will choose abortion as the preferred contraceptive method. This is a repulsive idea revealing preconceptions not only about women in general but especially about the type of women that chooses to have an abortion. The request indicates the presumption that abortion is the choice of the teenage girl who couldn’t be bothered asking her partner to use a condom, since the choice of abortion was always there. 

As the whole abortion discussion is surrounded by taboos it is hard to acquire comprehensible information regarding who chooses to have an abortion. One can assume though, that out of 20 000 annually, we are not exclusively talking about the teenage girls to lasy to get on the pill. We are talking about women already experiencing the beauty of motherhood but who cannot afford feed another child. We are talking about the victims of rape and incest, the women who were left by their partner in early stages of pregnancy who just don’t want to go through with it alone. 

There are so many reasons why criminalising abortion is counter productive and morally wrong. It is not only a matter of a woman’s right to decide over her own body and her future (even though this is naturally one of the most important points in this whole discussion), but it is also a matter of having a legislation that mirrors the general view of the people, inside and outside the courts. Laws that are not implemented are unnecessary laws, and laws that discriminate women and reveals how little trust our elected leaders put in us as moral, ethical human beings, are just plain disgusting.    

In its submission to the inquiry into the handling of the case, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) says one of its staff felt "extreme pressure" to assure police they could charge Dr Haneef.

The CDPP also says they were not given enough information by the AFP to correctly decide the strength of the case against Dr Haneef.

Now I don't think this reflects well on the DPP either. The fact is that they made a recommendation - if they felt they had insufficient information to form an appropriate opinion, they should have said so. But it seems that the AFP were driven to ensure Haneef was detained and prosecuted - which brings us back again to concerns about political involvement in the process. Their apparent prognostication about what they would manage to discover is also a worry:

The CDPP now says prosecutors were wrong to advise the AFP that they could charge Dr Haneef, but their decision was based on assurances that gaps in the evidence would be filled by ongoing investigations.

Apparently the AFP does plan to release a public version of its submission - we'll see what they have to say about it. Meanwhile, the available information about the inquiry can be found here.