IVF Suit

In the last day or so a lesbian couple who sought IVF to have a child have been all over the media – unfortunately though, it’s for all the wrong reasons. The couple are suing Dr Robert Armellin, the clinician they say negligently caused them to have two children and not the one they asked for. They accuse the doctor of incorrectly implanting two embryos and are pursuing a civil law suit to the value of $400,000 – the cost of raising their ‘surplus child’.

News of this case troubles me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I would classify this as a frivolous law suit. No question. It should be immediately (laughed) tossed out of court and the women in question forced to pay for wasting the court’s precious time. IVF is painful (emotionally and physically), costly and success rates are low. Many couples try repeatedly and fail. Multiple embryos are often implanted to increase the chance of success. Having a successful procedure is something to be treasured – the concept of ‘too successful’ doesn’t occur to most childless couples (gay or straight). The scourge of the frivolous law suit has long sickened the continental US and is emboldened with each new victory. It is a disease that I had hoped we would be largely spared of, as a people who supposedly pride themselves on common sense.

Second of all, and perhaps more important is the impact this saga is having on the rights of same sex couples to have a family though IVF. At a time when the issue is still divisive and certainly topical, this bad publicity is sure to be extrapolated. Critics are bound to seize upon this suit as reinforcement of unfair (and plainly incorrect) stereotypes which seek to undermine the value same sex couples place on having children. The quotes already in print from this case implying that the women had allocated enough love and resources for one child, but not for two – are damaging in general, but particularly so for same sex couples, already under fire.

Overall then, this case represents a two fold danger. Frivolous law suit season could be upon us, and anti-gay rhetoric could be louder than usual in the coming days. My advice then is to fight the urge to make a quick buck via a dodgy law suit, but to even more strongly repel the (all too common) human failing of judging minority groups by the actions of a few.

Keep an Eye on Pakistan

While we spent our collective week fretting about the APEC fence, the danger posed by anarchist hippy protesters (and j-walking accountants) and the nerve of those Chaser Boys – the relative stability of the subcontinent looked increasingly shaky. General Pervez Musharraf has ruled Pakistan for nearly 8 years as both military commander and President after taking power in 1999 in a bloodless coup d'état. Recently though, his people are crying out for a return to democratic rule and for Musharraf to go - throwing the future of the nations 160 million Muslims into question.

Pakistan was ‘created’ in 1947, following a British plan to partition their colonies in the subcontinent along religious lines. Majority Hindu regions become modern day India, while corresponding Muslim areas comprised East and West Pakistan (with East Pakistan subsequently succeeding to become Bangladesh). Soon after the partition, the British abandoned the region and years of rioting and blood letting followed. Civil war, corrupt governance and tensions over disputed territories (particularly Kashmir) have meant that Pakistan’s 60 years of sovereignty have been filled with violence. In this context, you can appreciate the relative calm (death remains a part of everyday life) that Musharraf’s military rule has brought – even though it has come at the cost of true democracy and many civil liberties. He is such a polarising figure that he has endured at least 3 assassination attempts since 2003.

Let me assure you at this point, that this is not a useless history lesson. The politics of such a populous Muslim nation and their role in the wider world couldn’t be more important. It’s the kind of thing that should be played on the evening news in preference to Hollywood gossip and petty local political. Currently, Pakistan is classified as an ally of the US, and has at least given the pretence of battling Al-Qaeda – while objectively they have drifted away from democratic ideals that had started to take hold prior to the coup.

In the coming months, Pakistani’s will come to a very important fork in the road, Musharraf is almost guaranteed to go – but who will he be replaced by? Down one path Pakistan can return to Democracy and demonstrate that Islam and this form of governance are not incompatible. The Army will be separated again from the Government and faith in the judicial system and free press restored (these have been eroding fast of late). Alternatively, military rule will continue, and more and more rights slowly stripped away. Extremism that flourishes in the border regions of the nation could take wider hold and 'The West' could lose an invaluable ally. Whatever the case, Australian’s should care very much about that outcome.

Scrap Workchoices

Industrial Relations (IR) policy here in Australia is a thorny issue in the lead up to the soon-to-be-announced election – perhaps even the decisive one. While health care, education and infrastructure may be just as important, it is the work place where Australian’s are feeling the most immediate threat. In this context, the performance of IR Minister Joe Hockey and his opposition (and Deputy Labor Leader) Julia Gillard couldn’t be more crucial over the next month. They’ve been trading jabs for a year or so already, but for mine, Julia is gathering momentum – and clearly out boxed Hockey during last nights ABC debate.

The reason simply put, is that the Labor party seem to at least be heading in the right direction: establishing a fair balance between workers and employers – something of particular importance for our poorest workers. They realise the value of collectively bargained agreements, as well as the flexibility for people pulling down 6 figures or more, to sort themselves out. In contrast, the Government seems to have noticed that businesses (and the economy) grow faster when labour is cheaper – and are letting ‘the market’ decide how much 10 hours on a production line is worth (not much).

The value of a good IR policy was impressed upon me as I worked my way through Uni at a bottling plant in the western suburbs. The plant was a microcosm of the wider workforce: the 50 or so employees included a CEO, marketing department, sales force, scientists, engineers, forklift drivers, cleaners and production line workers. In the same car park, the CEO’s yellow Peugot convertible (he even had driving gloves and cap for winter) nestled next to my 1981 commodore with the cracked head. It was an amazing learning experience. The degree-qualified staff enjoyed fat salaries and air conditioned offices, while the battlers pulled 12-hour shifts in the stifling bottling plant. The years I spent there taught me two things about Unions: without them, low-skilled workers are helpless and at the mercy of fast-talking HR managers – but also that Unions can quickly over-reach and become obstructive.

It seems obvious to me then, that the Government’s role is only to fine tune that balance. Let Unions represent blocs of unskilled workers to guarantee minimum conditions, but allow employers to sack problematic workers and to be free of unnecessary strike action. Last night, on The 730 Report, Julia Gillard said as much – while Hockey sought only to demonise Union involvement and to point to our growing (resource fuelled) economy.

Philosophically, we are being presented with two options. Under Labor we will continue to protect our lowest paid workers, allowing them to bargain for better pay – coupled to increased productivity. In contrast, the Libs are sending the message that our international competitiveness and economy at large rely on reducing labour costs and that maintaining basics rights is an unnecessary expense. Viewed in this light, there seems to be no contest; happy workers are productive workers - and trying to compete with China’s low cost labour force by oppressing our own is a fool’s errand.