Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Federal Election Email Interview – Emma Davidson, ACT Senate candidate for What Women Want (Australia)

By Jazz 1 November 2007 36

In the second in our series of Federal Election candidate Email Interviews we bring you Emma Davidson – the lead ACT Senate candidate for What Women Want Australia.

Emma Davidson’s responses, in full and unedited, can be found below:

ACT Senate candidate Emma Davidson


Question 1: Provide a short (no greater than 200 word) employment application style Resume (CV), including what work have you done apart from being a politician or political staffer or party/union/lobby employee and what experience or qualifications you have with regards to economic management?

I have never worked as a politician or political staffer. Since joining the workforce in 1993, I have spent seven years at Centrelink, two years in a private IT firm, and five years at Defence. I am currently chasing after three children, and working on a small home-based business dedicated to environmentally sustainable and fair trade parenting products.
I know how hard, and rewarding, it is to balance work and family, having worked full time with babies under six months old. And I know that working part time doesn’t necessarily make it easier!
My university qualification is a Bachelor of General Studies (another name for a BA). The subjects in my degree are a mix of law, IT, and communications/media.
The most important thing I can do in the Senate is request amendments to Bills that bring them into line with the policies of What Women Want: better resourcing for health, education, environment issues, and work/family balance. However, I am mindful of the cost. For example, I think it would be a better use of $88m to spend it on indigenous health services – not the administrative costs of quarantining welfare payments for people in indigenous communities.

Question 2: What would you like to see as the first piece of legislative change brought about by your Government? What are your personal goals for your first year representing the ACT?

Our Senate candidates can make a powerful impact on legislation raised by whoever is in government, in the form of amendments. We only need one Senate candidate to make a significant difference.
I would like to make a real difference to healthcare in the ACT. Our hospitals are desperately under-resourced, we don’t have enough GPs let alone enough bulk-billing GPs. We need more preventive care and early intervention, especially for mental health. Medicare should be extended for dental, midwifery, physiotherapy, and other proven complementary healthcare. This would help reduce the number of people needing acute hospital care, especially low income earners.
Education is another issue close to my heart. You might remember me as an active Save Melrose campaigner in 2006. We need better resourcing for early childhood education, as well as equity between public and private school funding. We also need to abolish HECS as part of providing fairer higher education – this is an investment in Australia’s economic future.
The environment crisis needs immediate action. We can ensure long-term water resources through cross-border cooperation. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle is the way to go with water – free rainwater tanks to every house could be more economical and more effective than building another dam. Our climate change policy includes strategies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2020; a 90% reduction by 2030; and to net zero by 2040. We need to start working towards these goals immediately if we are to achieve them.

Question 3: What private opinions do you hold which are different to those of your party?
On which issues do you disagree with your Party’s stated position?

I agree with all the policies of What Women Want. I am impressed with how responsive the policy team are to suggestions for improvement.

Question 4: Are you in favour of fixed election terms? Why or why not and if so what length of term are you in favour of and why?

After the farce of waiting for Howard to call the 2007 election, I can see good reasons for a fixed election date. I don’t hold a strong opinion on the length of term, but it should be long enough to achieve changes in policy without allowing the government to become stale in their ideas.

Question 5: Do you think that it is important for the Prime Minister and their family to live in Canberra? Why or why not?

Yes. It makes perfect sense for the PM to be close to the Departments that implement government policies. It’s an insult to Canberrans that our PM isn’t living in the national capital.

Question 6: Do you consider that making observations about the structure and makeup of the other major political party as beneficial to your own party’s role in the election?

It is worthwhile being aware of the corporate sponsorship that could be influencing the policies of the parties you are voting for.
It is also useful to consider the personal bias (often subconscious) that all human beings bring to their decision-making. This is why it is so important that our Senate, as a House of Review, reflects the diversity of Australian culture. We need more women, young people, indigenous people, people with disabilities, and people from other cultural backgrounds in our Senate.

Question 7: What are you thoughts on the permanent trading of water entitlements, as per The National Water Initiative (http://www.dpmc.gov.au/water_reform/nwi.cfm), and do you believe that giving water a tradable, economic value is really the best method to ensure that this scare Australian resource will be utilised sensibly in the future?

Reducing our water use is something we need to do immediately. Increasing the price we pay for water is one way to do this, but we need to ensure that low-income earners can still access clean water. We also need to make changes so that big business, who can pay higher water costs and pass it on to consumers in the cost of the end-product, have non-financial reasons to reduce water use, and support in achieving reductions. One of the problems with the government’s approach to the water crisis is that they aren’t able to work cooperatively with State governments. Without a cooperative approach, any change is doomed to failure.

Question 8: Canberra has a large student population and Govt funding per capita for public education facilities seems to be on the slide with there being an apparent shift towards encouraging more people to enter the private education sector. What are your thoughts on this?

We want to see equity in education funding. Public schools should be funded to provide a quality education for all Australians, not just those who can’t afford private schools.

What initiatives would you pursue in regard to HECS fees, full fee paying uni courses, increasing/decreasing Austudy payments, funding for education/ R&D/communications infrastructure and assistance or encouragement to private sector research and technology companies?

The HECS system burdens young people with debt. We support abolition of HECS fees as part of a fairer higher education system, where university entry is based on merit rather than money. Having to repay interest-free loans of tens of thousands of dollars is also a problem for mature-age workers who need new qualifications as part of a career change. A well-supported university system is an investment in Australia’s economic future, as it enables us to trade in knowledge and ideas.
We also support investment in renewable energy as part of our climate change policy. ANU has set a great example with its solar power research. Our universities should be celebrated as innovators, often producing long-term and expensive research that would not be commercially viable in the private sector.

What measures will you take to ensure the best possible education is available to all Australians?

We can start with improving early childhood education funding, progress through equity between public and private school funding at primary and secondary level, and complete the picture with a fairer higher education system for all Australians. I would be looking for ways to include these requirements in any relevant Bills once they reach the Senate.

Question 9:What’s the single most pressing issue in your electorate (local electorate issue – not a broader issue that has an impact on your electorate) and how do you plan on addressing it?

Public health. I know this is a problem across Australia, but Canberra is in a particularly bad position. We have some of Australia’s worst emergency department waiting times, the country’s highest out-of-pocket GP costs and some of Australia’s lowest GP bulk billing rates, and we provide care for ACT residents as well as our NSW neighbours. The Commonwealth blame ACT Government mismanagement; the ACT Government blames lack of federal funding. The two tiers need to work cooperatively to resolve the health crisis, for Canberrans as well as nearby NSW.
Apart from the obvious under-resourcing issue, we can improve our hospital report card by keeping people out of acute care. Let’s put more resources into preventive care and early intervention, especially for mental health. We can also extend Medicare to cover dental, midwifery, physiotherapy, and other complementary health services. Yes, it will be expensive – but it will reduce our hospital costs, and provide better long-term health care for everyone.

Question 10: Suppose that you and I are stuck in an elevator for 5 minutes. You know nothing about me other than I’m enrolled to vote in your electorate. What do you say to convince me to vote for you.

As a busy breastfeeding mother, I have a stash of energy snacks in my handbag. So I’m a good person to know if you’re stuck in a lift!
Enough of the arguments between Commonwealth and ACT governments. Let’s just get on with fixing our broken health and education systems, do something serious and long-term about water and climate change, and make Canberra a better place to live.
As a Senator, I will use my vote to support Bills that meet these goals. I’m not interested in adversarial politics. I am here because I want to create positive change in Australian society. And I want to know what would make life better for you. So… what do you think needs to change?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
36 Responses to
Federal Election Email Interview – Emma Davidson, ACT Senate candidate for What Women Want (Australia)
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Pandy 11:48 pm 04 Nov 07

The more I look at her, the less I want to give her what she wants.

Bring back Natasha!

thetruth 10:16 pm 04 Nov 07

I stand corrected – I decided that I should be open eyed and took the time to check out the constitution of the party – interesting that the founder was an advisor to Kerry Tucker.

Anycase – their constitution states

support affirmative action and practice participatory, democratic and
accountable internal decision making process;
4.8 What Women Want (Australia) are committed to the principle of women
and men having equal status within society and will practice gender equity
and equal opportunity principles;
4.9 At no time will any Member be discriminated against due to gender, age,
race, ethnicity, class, religion, disability, sexuality or marital status.

I understand that the ALP has an affirmative action goal to have a certain number of females in safe seats by a cerain date. WHAT IS WWW AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TARGET FOR MALE MEMBERS OF THE PARTY AND CANIDATES? AT the moment WWW are 100% women.

WILL WWW pass laws that forbid businesses like ferwood to have discriminatory membership policies and sexist advertising?

Will they enact policies and laws within the family court that seek to redress the gender imbalance?

I will vote for WWW if they show their moral bona fides – because I as a male want gender equality for the benefit of both my sons, my daughter, my spouse, mother, sisters.

Somehow I think that WWW is just another party that cloaks itself in moral superiority, but is as committed to prejudice.

sepi 7:40 pm 04 Nov 07

I didn’t address your point about a movie as I don’t think it relates to the topic of a Emma Davidson standing for the Senate on a woman based platform. Perhaps you could write to the film classification board.

thetruth 10:43 pm 03 Nov 07

“What is more important – for your sons to get access to Fernwood, or your daughter to get into parliament?”

Both are important because the principle is right – my son also has the right nost to see an advert proclaiming that a companies compettitve advantage is its ability to exclude on the basis of gender

You cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hound.

I note you did not address the actual issue but tried to trivialise it.

So is it more important that rape is not trivialised and made funny in a movie when it is a female raping a male – no rape is not funny period (no means no).

ant 9:13 pm 03 Nov 07

Water shortages, food shortages, housing shortages, petrol shortages, and you want to PAY people to have more kids?

Oh and by the way, the good old “they’ll pay taxes for your pension” argument doesn’t wash with people who are furiously pushing money into their superannuation. I’ll be paying tax on my super, too, as I’m in one of the ones where you pay tax once you start reaping it.

And most old people actually don’t need anyone wiping their backsides, ever.

Pandy 7:45 pm 03 Nov 07

Ant, without immigration, breeding bags 9not you obviously) would have to pop out 2.1 children just to retain the status quo. Obviously that is not happening.

so who is going to wipe your bottom when you become a nursing home dribbler?

cranky 6:56 pm 03 Nov 07

I know which is the impossible.

sepi 6:15 pm 03 Nov 07

What is more important – for your sons to get access to Fernwood, or your daughter to get into parliament?

thetruth 5:45 pm 03 Nov 07

May be they are not so loopy (he says with tongue firmly in cheek)

this from the ABC:

“The Australian Greens say their preferences in the Senate will be directed to Labor in a bid to change the balance of power.

Greens leader Bob Brown says the party will first direct preferences to like-minded smaller parties including the Democrats and What Women Want, and then they will be directed to Labor.”

I goota say I a an old labor voter that has been waiting for the day that I could return to the party. I really think that the unions domination of the party has not been their friend. I have almost been wooed back because I am starting to believe that Rudd can control them – but if the Greens have control of the senate. Their IR policies are very extreme.

This from the Greens website:

“The ALP won’t abolish all existing AWAs, nor will it guarantee the right of entry to unions in workplaces. These are enshrined under the Greens charter.

“We will certainly be putting pressure on Labor over these important rights in any new Rudd government after the election.

“Labor was conspicuously absent from today’s rally. Workers are asking how long they will have to wait for a Labor government to get rid of WorkChoices.”

They may have just lost me again…

thetruth 3:58 pm 03 Nov 07

Sepi that just it – no one is up in arms over a health club that advertises that it expressly excludes people on the basis of gender. No one is up in arms that a poplular comedy movie depicts a rape as being funny, no one is up in arms that a court has such a high gender bias (Yes even parliament has more than 9% women, but that the chance a male has of recieving residency of their children).

Are you seriously telling me that if there was a health club that excluded women and had the by line “no jans, no margarets and definiately no pussies” or the wedding crasher had a scene where a woman was tied up to the bed and raped (only to later fall in love with their attacker) or the Family court gave residency to the father in 91% of cases- that we would have the same level of deafing silence that we have now with the situation reversed?

I have no doubt that men everywhere would join the fight on those injustices, we would stand with our spouses, mother and daughters in the picket line. Why don’t women join the fight instead of joining fernwood?

When a vaccine that may prevent cervical cancer is delayed on the PBS men joined with women to lobby to ensure that the drug is available.

I have sons and a daughter – I what them to have access to all of lifes opportunties. But we must come together and fight gender discrimination in all its forms not merely pick and chose the ones that impact “our team” ie gender.

ant 11:20 am 03 Nov 07

“Bob McM and Garry are not so representative of women either though.

Comment by sepi — 1 November, 2007 @ 10:32 pm “

I always wrote Bob McMullan off as a party hack, as he’s not “out there” making a lot of noise. I was wrong. Bob apparently does his work quietly, from the inside.

A very small number of Labor members have been speaking up against middle-class welfare going to “families” for some time now, and he’s one of them. Pointing out that it’s not necessary, and that everyone without children are being milked for it.

Looking after the poor and disadvantaged is what welfare is meant to be for. Tax deductions, subsidies and breeding bribes for people on 6-figure incomes is wrong.

That clown from Family First wants to shovel $10,000 at any female who has 3 (or more) kids! That is, the usual breeding bribe for the first 2, and then Jackpot $10k on the third. I imagine Harvey Normans and Bing Lee are very supportive of that idea. Yuck.

sepi 8:54 am 03 Nov 07

I always think it is wierd when small pockets of inequality affecting men get people up in arms, yet they dismiss the ongoing areas of inequality affecting women.

I’d like to see more women in parliament.

el ......VNBerlinaV8 10:36 pm 02 Nov 07

Pandy – my bet is 40 votes.

Ant – Breeding bags? That’s gold.

And as for

free rainwater tanks to every house could be more economical and more effective than building another dam. Our climate change policy includes strategies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2020; a 90% reduction by 2030; and to net zero by 2040.

“Crank” might be too kind, m1.

thetruth 10:27 pm 02 Nov 07

Sepi the problem is that by being separatist – one is not inclusive. The government funded decision making body that I referred is the Family court that finds in favour of the mother in approximately 91% of cases. If a court found in favour of men by 91% there would be revolution (and indeed has been).

Change in womens rights happened when men also saw the injustice and helped.

I watched the movie the wedding crashers which depicited a female raping a man as funny – again if reversed it would have been howled down (quite rightly).

We cannot get equality for one group but must fight for equality for all.

sepi 10:06 pm 02 Nov 07

thetruth you’ve answered your own question – of course there should be equality, but there isn’t.So women see a need to stand up for themselves.

And if Emma standing as a candidate gets coverage for some of the issues she cares about, then that is a positive.

bd84 9:36 pm 02 Nov 07

too bad her 3 kids are only young, she might have got 5 votes instead of just the votes of herself and husband.

I don’t see why these people bother, it’s plainly obvious that none of their stances have been properly thought through. Strategies for implementing these policies rather than “it’s what we want” .. shows with the party name doesn’t it?.. that may see them actually gain more votes than their immediate family and the people who accidently number the wrong box.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site