Several weeks ago I spoke at a rally in support of the rights of mothers to give birth in their own homes. The federal government is currently reviewing the role of midwives within the health system but the issue really erupted after the release of a study of 300,000 births in South Australia conducted by Marc Keirse of Flinders University.

Unfortunately the study's findings were taken completely out of context, resulting in headlines like this in The Australian.

Part of the reason for the hysterical reporting was that AMA president Dr Andrew Pesce, who happens to be an obstetrician, issued a press release citing the study as evidence of the dangers of homebirths. Not surprisingly the line was swallowed by most of the mainstream media.

It's disappointing, but not entirely unexpected that the AMA would use the medical evidence so selectively. After all they're paid to defend doctors' interests.

In actual fact, the study actually has some quite good news for midwives. To see just how misleading the reporting has been, I suggest reading through this sensible analysis in Crikey.

Ben Eltham's piece in New Matilda raises some interesting issues. He makes the point that

"Labor is comprehensively failing to make the political and cultural case for climate change action. This is a missed opportunity of staggering proportions. Big coal companies, dirty power plants and nutty Liberal culture warriors do not naturally enjoy wide popularity. If Labor ever stoops to actually engage with the issue, it should be able to quickly take command of the debate."

I suspect that part of the problem is that most of the senior figures within the ALP either don't understand or just aren't very excited about climate change as an issue. I'm reminded of a forum in the lead up to the last election where Lindsay Tanner was asked about Labor's position on feed in tariffs to stimulate the development of the solar industry. He responded that while he didn't know much about the issue, the ALP generally don't support tariffs so they would be unlikely to support the measure. If a senior figure like Lindsay Tanner has that level of understanding about such as basic policy tool, it's no surprise the ALP are floundering when it comes to defending their position on the ETS.

Dear Peter,
Thanks for your generous advice on how I can become Victoria’s first Greens Senator. I can’t help but think though that taking advice from you on how to achieve one’s personal ambitions is a little like taking advice from Alan Bond on how to play the stock market. I think I’ll give it a miss. Thanks all the same.
Richard

The government’s plan to introduce an internet filter in an election year is classic populist politics ahead of common sense. The government is aware that parents are genuinely concerned that their kids can access inappropriate material on the internet far too easily. That’s why they promised to do something about it in the lead up to the 2007 election. But rather than a practical response that might take time to have effect they’ve gone for a quick fix to create the illusion of action.

The problem with this quick fix is that it’s likely to do very little, and worse still may actually be counterproductive.  As a number of opponents and the government's own trial have suggested the proposed filter can be circumvented far too easily, is expensive and will slow down internet speeds. By creating a veneer of internet safety there’s also a real chance that some parents will be less vigilant than they might be otherwise.

Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby makes some interesting points in this piece. It's worth a read.

The bottom line is that the government's recent internet trial has raised many more questions than it’s answered. Greens Communications spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlum has expressed his concerns on the government’s proposed internet filter for many months now. I’d suggest reading his response to the recent trial if you’ve got any doubts about where the Greens stand.

It's been a huge couple of weeks in Australian politics. We've had a change of Opposition Leader, a reshuffle of the Coalition front bench and we're currently in the middle of critical global negotiations about the future of the planet.

The change in Liberal leadership wasn't simply about a policy disagreement. It's a rift that goes right to the heart of the tension between conservatism and liberalism within the modern Liberal party.  As Lindy Edwards wrote in The Age last week:

"climate change divisions are lining up with the broader ideological split . A commitment to hierarchy, compulsion and cultural conformity is knocking up against a belief in diversity, freedom, equality and choice. That is a hard divide to bridge."

Given how close the leadership vote was I suspect this story still has a long way to go. A very different Australian political landscape is still on the cards.

As for the front bench reshuffle, at least it proves Abbott has a sense of humour.

"I’d give anything to see the Andrew Bolts and Barnaby Joyces of the world proved correct, to be shown that the whole thing is a left-wing con, the ultimate scam cooked up (ha!) by some lazy academics and watermelon greenies who accomplished what millennia of Illuminati and weird hand-shaking Masons and sinister religious orders failed to do  — fool the world with a global conspiracy.

Because that’s the only basis on which our international position and the CPRS make any sense."

I recently attended Clive Hamilton's campaign launch for Higgins. Our local Greens branch are enthusiastic about his nomination and his candidacy has generated a fair amount of local and national interest. It's a great sign for the party that people of Clive's calibre are now standing for the Greens. We need more public intellectuals in politics, particularly ones like Clive that challenge and provoke. I may not agree with all of his views but strict party discipline suffocates debate in this country and has a profoundly unhealthy impact on our democracy. The bottom line for me is that now we have one of the country’s best credentialed climate change advocates taking up the fight in Higgins. It couldn’t come at a more critical moment with the planet on the edge and Copenhagen around the corner. All strength to his arm.

The 24th of November 2007 feels like a long time ago.  It was the election that saw the Coalition lose government, John Howard lose his seat and a relative unknown elected as our new PM. There was a huge sense of hope and optimism that night. Indigenous Australians were finally going to get an apology, refugee policy would be overhauled and at long last Australia would sign the Kyoto protocol.

As the lead senate candidate in 2007, the night was bittersweet. The final senate spot in Victoria was on a knife edge but I was behind in the count.  We wouldn’t know the result for weeks but it would be a hard ask from here.  From Kevin Rudd’s election night victory speech it was clear that a bureaucrat was now in charge when the times called for something more.  But for most people on the progressive side of politics none of that really mattered. To them it felt like the nation had just changed course.

For a time I thought they might be right. I was lucky enough to be in Canberra at the time of the apology and for a brief moment the country was united. Kyoto too was important, even if it was largely symbolic and the rest of the world was now debating what should come next. 

Two years on and that feeling of hope and optimism has almost completely evaporated.

Labor proposes to combat climate change by setting weak targets, rewarding polluters and preventing individuals from taking meaningful action. It is a scheme that locks in failure. When it comes to asylum seekers, rather than abolishing the pacific solution it’s just changed the address. As for the apology, he may need to give another one once the NT intervention is over.

It’s now clear that however important those early decisions were, they were easy. The nation wanted action and the PM delivered without fear of political risk. There are parallels with John Howard who early in his first term responded decisively to the Port Arthur Massacre with tougher gun laws. Now faced with the greatest moral issue of our time (the PM’s words not mine), the government has gone to water. A victory for vested interests over science.

Of course this has only been made possible because we have an opposition dominated by Neanderthals. According to the Liberal's senate leader Nick Minchin climate change is just a front for former communists whose real agenda is to de-industrialise the west and send us all back to live in caves. Never mind the science. For Senator Minchin the enlightenment never happened.

It is true that underpinning the climate change debate lies a profound question about the way we live our lives. We are told from the moment we take our first breath that the pathway to personal fulfilment and collective progress is through material consumption. But are current levels of consumption and growth consistent with a genuinely sustainable economy?  They are big questions that have nothing to do with caves.