Jenni's blog

Thank you Prime Minister

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:35:51 +1000

What a day it has been for Australia. Prime Minister Rudd, in the most graceful way possible, has stepped aside to allow our first woman Prime Minister to take charge.

Thank you Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Gillard has clearly stated the values she will base her actions on, and in doing so, has reinforced for Australian citizens a set of values that we can all be proud of.

Thank you Prime Minister.

ALP votes against six months parental leave

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:34:57 +1000

On May 27 the Liberal Party attempted, and failed, to amend the government’s paid parental leave scheme to increase it to 6 months leave on full income replacement. The amendment was defeated.

You can read the Second Reading Speeches for yourself.

The following members spoke against the increases:

Chris Hayes, ALP, Member for Werriwa
Catherine King, ALP, Member for Ballarat
Darren Chester, National Party, Member for Gippsland
Maxine McKew, ALP, Member for Bennelong
Yvette D’Ath, ALP, Member for Petrie
Shayne Neumann, ALP, Member for Blair
Jim Turnour, ALP, Member for Leichhardt

Of course, the Liberal Party proposal was always a bit suspicious, coming after many years in government when they did nothing about parental leave, but who are we to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Equally strange is that the ALP’s main argument against the amendment was on economic grounds, not on social grounds. They claimed to be protecting business from a tax imposition implicit in the Liberal party scheme.

I used to believe that it was the Liberal Party who supports the interests of big business above the interests of the people. Not any more.

I also know enough about economics to know that governments always afford to do whatever it is that they think is important.

The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the ALP does not think that 6 months parental leave is as important as protecting business from a relatively small tax ... even though the evidence shows this would ensure the best possible start for newborn babies.

So to those who think that the ALP scheme is a ‘first step’ towards something grander .... you’re dreaming.

Proposed maternity leave scheme problems

Fri, 21 May 2010 15:14:35 +1000

The Women and Work Research Group (WWRG) at Sydney University have identified a few more problems with the government’s proposed paid parental leave legislation in their recent submission to the Senate's Inquiry into the Exposure Draft of the Paid Parental Leave Scheme Bill 2010.

I’ve done a bit of complaining in the past about the governments proposed paid parental leave scheme but in case you haven’t got the message…I TRULY don’t like it. And I’m not alone in this view. In brief, the problems with the legislation as it is currently written include the following.

Your employer doesn’t have to pay your superannuation entitlements while you are on leave under this legislation. Apparently no one in government has been listening to the debate about the gender pay gap and the low level of retirement incomes that Australian women face. Or perhaps it isn’t really such a problem after all?
There is no guarantee you’ll get the same, or similar, job back when you return from paid maternity leave – now really, how could this have been overlooked? Hello? Did anyone look at the draft Bill before it was published?
There is also no guarantee that your employer will give you the leave. The legislation entitles you to the payment, but not to the leave. Another oversight?
You get the payment by claiming it (presumably through Centrelink) but the money then goes to your employer who pays you…? Messy! How will you know that it is all being passed on to you?
The legislation does not clearly spell out that the payment you receive under this legislation is intended to be taken in addition to your employer’s paid maternity leave scheme. Clearly the government’s view is that no Australian employers would be nasty enough to use this payment as a substitute for what they currently offer their staff. Would they?
There is no separate paternity leave provision in the current legislation. The mother is the ‘primary claimant’ and the ‘primary claimant’s partner’ is the ‘secondary claimant’. The payment can be shared between the primary and secondary claimants, but both parents cannot be paid for the same period of time off work.
Although the government has acknowledged that this legislation is only a small step along the path to a decent paid parental leave scheme, there is no schedule or plan for taking the next (probably equally small) steps. I wonder why?

I am totally unimpressed by all the congratulations and strong support being given to the government for this scheme. A whole lot of people have been ecstatic that Australian women are being offered these crumbs, but I AM NOT.

This is one of the most cynical exercises I have seen a government undertake.

Scant attention has been given to the issue; the proposed scheme offers an absolute minimum of entitlements after an extended timeframe which just happens to go past an election .

WOMEN AND BABIES DESERVE A LOT MORE.

Who's a clever boy, then?

Wed, 12 May 2010 14:50:28 +1000

My first reaction to the federal budget is that Tony Abbott must be VERY pleased with himself. In no uncertain terms he told the government, and Australia, that the most important challenge facing us is getting rid of our surplus, and this has been swallowed hook line and sinker by the Rudd government at the expense of everything that Labor holds dear.

I also suspect that this budget is setting a new low for initiative for any government. After all, Wayne Swan did say yesterday that budgets don’t influence opinion polls.

There is nothing in the budget on improving the equal opportunities legislation, pay equity, women’s retirement incomes or child care.

Who’s a clever boy, then?

Come in spinner

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:33:31 +1000

Don't you love spin? In the past few weeks, according to the spin, the Rudd government has protected us from becoming a 'divided community' and cleverly avoided 'disrupting parents' and 'unsettling the child care industry'.

We should be so grateful.

But look beneath the spin and you can see it has been a busy week for a government in denial.

Apparently Australia doesn't need anything nearly as straightforward as a Human Rights Charter to prevent human rights violations as recommended by the National Human Rights Consultation.

No, we just need to educate people better according to the Attorney-General for Australia. Oh, yes, he also added in some vague promises to consolidate discrimination laws.

Really?

And, apparently we don't need more childcare places.

Gosh no, that would simply cause 'disruption' for parents and unsettle the childcare industry' at least, that is what Childcare Minister Kate Ellis is reported as saying.

What the heck does that mean?

The spin is that the government is doing us a favour by NOT acting on these issues.

By NOT giving us a Human Rights Charter, they say they are preventing the community being divided.

By NOT giving us more child care places, they say they are preventing parents from being disrupted and the child care industry from being unsettled'.

How kind.

I wonder what they are protecting us from by deciding NOT to accept any refugees from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka?

Such spin combined with such self-righteous justification for not taking action takes my breath away.

Will the real problem please stand up?

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:35:11 +1000

I have always believed that the first step in successful problem solving is to question your assumptions. This means understanding how you arrive at your interpretations of the world, and how that influences your thinking about the particular problem at hand, or how it can be solved.

Unfortunately, Heather Ridout skipped this part of the equation when she commented on the problem of low numbers of women represented in senior positions in Australian businesses and on boards.

Her advice to Australian working women to socialise with their bosses if they want to get ahead is NOT the solution to Australian women's problems at work, it is the problem.

But the real problem is that Australian business leaders still follow blindly along old thinking habits, seeing the same old patterns, when they need some serious reflection, some critical thinking and a new point of view.

Yes, it is true that, in Australian workplaces, people get on best if they can engage with their bosses outside working hours. It is just that this is wrong, sad and pathetic. Did I say wrong? It is very, very wrong.

No-one, not women, not men, should have to schmooze outside normal hours to get ahead.

Success at work does not depend on how matey you are.
Success at work does not depend on how long you spend at the office.
Success at work does not depend on whether or not you go to the pub after work with your boss.

Success at work is determined by how effectively you achieve the outcomes required in your job.

Regardless of gender.

Dr Francesco Sofo once wrote that 'If we do not occasionally change the way we understand the world, then we do not grow and learn. We remain fixed in our views and are unresponsive to the changing environments around us.'

That neatly sums up the problem women have at work in my opinion. So Heather, how about you think again?

Just like home, really

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:12:00 +1000

Years ago, after living in a country where democracy didn't exist, I returned to Australia full of democratic zeal and fervour, but it didn't take long to realise that even in our wonderful country, democracy can come under threat.

What a lot of people forget is that democracy only exists where there are citizens who are willing to participate in public life and to speak out on issues that concern them.

But you can't speak out on issues that you don't know exist.

Some years ago the Rudd government announced legislation to support mandatory internet filtering. The stated purpose is to filter out child pornography, which no-one in their right mind would argue against.

However, what is not being discussed is the fact that a whole lot of other content will be filtered - including topics that are controversial, and topics that pertain to important political and social issues. According to Professors Lumby, Green and Hartley, authors of Untangling the Net: The Scope of Content Caught by Mandatory Internet Filtering only 32% of the sites on the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA)'s blacklist were related to child pornography.

Other banned sites included content that can be purchased offline including a web site that contained dialogue and excerpts from literary classics such as Nabokov's Lolita.

On Crikey.com.au we also learn that the government was considering allowing sites such as Youtube to be exempt from the filter if they agree to either prevent Australians looking at 'bad stuff' or take it down themselves.

Recently Wikileaks leaked a video of the killing in Afghanistan of Reuters staff and Iraqi citizens by US soldiers in US military helicopters.

It was bad. Really bad.

It showed the world what it is like for people living and working in Afghanistan.

Needless to say, the Americans are pretty cross that this video was leaked, and agencies like the CIA and the FBI have done everything possible to suppress it's publication.

You can be pretty sure this is the type of information that would be filtered out of our lives if the federal government gets the mandatory internet filtering legislation that it wants.

After all, the Australian government already tried to censor Wikileaks when it published the proposed list of sites that would be banned under their mandatory internet filtering legislation. You see, we aren't supposed to know what is banned under the proposed legislation.

If this legislation comes in as proposed, it is just possible that, to some of our resettled refugees, Australia will look a bit more like the home they have risked their lives to leave.

If you think this is as important as I do, let me know.

Maternity leave is for employed women

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:37:00 +1100

Let me make this clear - despite the attempts of the Rudd government to redefine paid maternity leave, it is not, I repeat NOT, a welfare payment.

Maternity leave is a work-related entitlement. It is TIME OFF WORK because of pregnancy and childbirth.

In most OECD countries all female employees are legally entitled to maternity leave that is paid leave.

In those countries, paid maternity leave is like recreation leave in Australia.

In Australia, recreation leave is a work-related paid leave entitlement available to all employees, men and women, and the payment levels differ according to the income earned in the jobs.

Some organisations also offer their staff other work-related paid leave entitlements - such as carer's leave, or long service leave. These work the same way.

But having a baby is different. For working women in Australia, that is.

When Australian women on government payments (called welfare) have a baby, they continue to receive their government payment.

When Australian women at work have a baby they lose their income if they work in an organisation that does not offer paid maternity leave as a work-related entitlement.

The majority of Australian organisation do not offer paid maternity leave.

The Rudd government is proposing to change this situation so that for 18 weeks they will receive a low level payment from government - not from their employer - at the average wage level, regardless of what they earned before. Personally, I think this is a mean offer and that it won't be enough keep women on high incomes at work.

Employers pay people carer's leave and long service and recreation leave because they recognise that this is a way of keeping their employees (men and women) at work.

They do not pay maternity leave to women because they do not value the women they employ.

In comparison with other OECD countries, the number of women in Australia who leave their jobs after they have babies is high. We need more women to stay at work to make our economy grow.

Why there is so much confusion about who should get paid maternity leave? Why is there so much commentary about it being inequitable if it isn't the same for every woman who has a baby? In my experience, if there is a choice of either conspiracy and incompetence, nine times out of ten it is incompetence. Or stupidity.

Perhaps the policy makers didn't quite understand what they were doing when they made it a payment from government, and not the responsibility of the employers. Or did they?

Tony Abbott wants paid maternity leave

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:08:45 +1100

Who'd believe it - but hallelujah, hallelujah! At last, an Australian political party is listening to what women have been saying they want for a long, long time. Just take a look at some of my blogs from 2008...and 2009...

Abbott has obviously had an epiphany - today, on International Women's Day, Mr Abbott has had a change of heart from his previous position of saying 'no' to paid maternity leave, and has proposed a paid maternity leave scheme that is almost identical to the schemes recommended by many women's organisations in their submissions to the Productivity Commission.

Take a look - the National Foundation for Australian Women's web site states that their submission recommended:

A minimum period of six months paid maternal leave

Income replacement, rather than a minimalist welfare payment

Four weeks paid paternal leave (at paternal wage level) and

Financing through a mix of Government, employer and employee contributions, comparable to the financing of retirement incomes

And this is pretty much what Abbott is offering - in stark contrast to the miserly scheme that the Labor government came up with, offering no better than welfare payments for 18 weeks - a much shorter period - no superannuation payments and no baby bonus!

I must say, I found it pretty difficult to believe that Labor could be so out of touch with women when this proposal was agreed, but perhaps they were just being a little too complacent.

I almost hesitate to say it, but I think that this could be a significant vote swinger for the Liberals.

Maybe Abbott is a lot smarter than I thought! No time now to be complacent, Mr Rudd.

A vow of silence

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:40:07 +1100

Since writing yesterday's post, it also occurs to me that perhaps Julia Gillard has it good. After all, she does get to speak on issues about this government's agenda, while the women in the Liberal party appear to have taken a vow of silence.

Is this anything to do with the fact that there is an Abbott and two Bishops in the party cloisters and males only are permitted in the scriptorium?

How very mediaeval Mr Abbott.

At least Julia gets the chance to speak occasionally.

Sour looks tell a story

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:32:54 +1100

I am tired of seeing the sour look on Kevin Rudd's face whenever he stands next Julia Gillard and the cameras are trained on her, not him.

I keep thinking that it wouldn't be too hard for him to look interested and maybe even supportive of what she is saying '?

But then, maybe I've got it wrong. After all, if he isn't interested, it could be extremely difficult to look as if he is.

So I guess all he can do is to wait patiently for the camera to roll back to him, the only person of any consequence, so that the truly significant messages can be relayed to his adoring public.

Sharing can be tough.

A sorry story

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:03:33 +1100

Tony Abbott may be disappointed to learn that Pauline Hanson is moving to the UK, but on reading the findings of the Review into the Equal Opportunities in the Workplace Legislation I am almost tempted to go with her.

Hanson says in her defence that 'the land of opportunity is no more applicable' and maybe she is right. No - I haven't quite gone to Planet Pauline - there are just too many differences - but I also feel disappointed with the way Australia has changed, specifically in regard to the treatment of women.

Deeply disappointed.

I find it difficult to understand why half the population continues to experience discrimination, and why our political masters think it is OK to continue to ignore the evidence.

And the depressing evidence is there under their noses.

The description of the current trends and characteristics of women in the labour force provided in the government's Consultation Report on the Review of the Equal Opportunity Legislation has really brought me down.

The report states that the following sorry story (be warned, it is a long list):

The Australian paid workforce is highly gender segregated, and female dominated industries have been historically undervalued;
Occupational segregation between men and women continues to exist, and male-dominated occupations continue to attract higher remuneration than female-dominated occupations;
Women are less likely to be in leadership positions within organisations;
Only 10.7 percent of executive managers in the ASX200 are women;
At the board director level, there are more than 10 men to every one woman;
At CEO level, there are 49 male CEOs for every female CEOs in the ASX200;
Australia has a lower participation rate for mothers with young children than the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries of Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States;
Women are much less likely to work full-time than men (54.9 percent compared to 84.1 percent), and comprise over 70 percent of the part-time workforce;
Despite gains in participation rates over time, women's earnings remain persistently lower than men's'Over a lifetime, pay inequity places women at a considerable disadvantage compared with men;
Studies suggest that about 50 percent of the pay gap cannot be fully explained by differences in these factors and can be attributed to discrimination in the workplace;
Long and inflexible working hours may preclude many workers with family responsibilities from pursuing particular career paths or job opportunities;
When the combined impact of paid and unpaid work is considered, overall, women work longer hours than men;
Maintaining a connection to the paid workforce following the birth of a child is a determinant of future employment patterns and earnings;
Experiences of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, fuelled by discriminatory stereotypes about gender roles, continue to pervade women's experiences of paid work' The Australian Human Rights Commission conducted a national telephone survey in 2008 and found that 22 percent of women aged 18 to 64 years have experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace during their lifetime;
Nearly one in every five pregnant women experiences at least one difficulty in their workplace in relation to being pregnant;
Australia lags behind many other developed countries in terms of women's workforce participation rates;
When compared to other OECD countries with similar tertiary education levels, Australia has the fifth largest pay gap;
Australia's ranking in the Global Gender Index of the World Economic Forum (a framework for capturing the magnitude and scope of gender-based disparities and tracking their progress) has slipped from 15th place in 2006 to 20th place in 2009'On these measures, Australia is significantly behind New Zealand (5th place), South Africa (6th place) and United Kingdom (15th place)

The report also tells you why it is important to change all this:

Australian women's increased workforce participation has been a major factor in leading to better economic security for women. Paid work gives women the opportunity to ensure their own financial security, contribute to the family budget and secure their economic future into retirement.
While paid work improves women's choices and independence, it is also fundamental to workplace productivity and economic growth.

Paid work is also widely recognised as key to addressing disadvantage and to contributing to social inclusion.

So there it is. A very sorry story indeed. No wonder I feel like running away sometimes. But not with Pauline.

Small breasted women

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:02:40 +1100

You just have to read Marieke Hardy's article about Barnaby Joyce on The Drum. What on earth does he think he is doing and who on earth does he think he is doing it for?

I first read about this issue a week ago in one of the American feminist blogs. From that article, I concluded that the Australian Sex Party had grabbed some media coverage talking about - believe it or not - breasts.

But it looks like their media campaign may have succeeded in grabbing the attention of a few blokes, including .... Barnaby Joyce.

After reading about the issue, Barnaby decided to 'round up' some adult magazines to check whether the portrayal of small breasted women is encouraging paedophilia, as claimed by the Australian Sex Party.

Clearly, Barnaby thought that this was a subject worth researching.

I confess, when I read the Broadsheet article originally, I didn't pay a lot of attention to it.

Mainly because I wasn't sure what they meant.

After all, isn't small-breasted a relative term, particularly when it comes to porn versus real life?

I agree wholeheartedly with what Kids Free 2B Kids is trying to achieve, but it is pretty clear that their organisation doesn't have a lot in common with the Australian Sex Party.

It is also clear that the Australian Sex Party has won the PR war on this subject.

And that is all it is, as far as I can see.

Silly Barnaby Joyce.

Silly, silly, boy.

What dimples? What creases?

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:38:00 +1100

Oh look - lots more publicity is being given to the Marie Claire magazine as a result of a nude cover page photo of Miss Universe 2004, Jennifer Hawkins, in the February 2010 issue. Well done guys - moving this sort of stuff from page 3 of the newspapers has to be an advance for women, doesn't it? And it's all in a good cause too - even better. Oh, in case you hadn't noticed (perhaps your glasses were too steamed up) the cause is all about promoting a healthy body image.

Hold on! I just had a flash! Wasn't it the women's mags who created the situation where promoting a healthy body image is now an exception to the rule?

Well, isn't it nice to see them trying to fix the mess they got us into...

But somehow I can't help thinking that placing an un-photo-shopped nude photograph of Miss Universe on the cover proves only one thing: that nudes on covers sell more magazines.

Celebrate the new year with a quiz

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:22:24 +1100

Given that it is holiday time, and hopefully you are all relaxing with your friends or family at the beach or at home, I thought a quiz could be a good way to kick off 2010, so wondered if you know the answers to the following:

1. What do these countries have in common?

Argentina, The Federation of Bosnia, Chile, Finland, Germany, India, Ireland, Liberia, Lithuania, The Philippines

2. What do these countries have in common?

Croatia, Haiti, Mozambique, Iceland, Ukraine, Bangladesh

3. What do these countries have in common?

The Gambia, Kiribati, Macedonia, Malawi, Peru, Spain, Syria, Vietnam, Zimbabwe

4. What do these countries have in common?

Australia, Belgium, Cambodia, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Guinea-Bissau, Ireland, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Montenegro, Namibia, Norway, Senegal, Sweden, Swaziland, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

Give up? The answers are:

1. They all have women Presidents

2. They all have women Prime Ministers

3. They all have women Vice Presidents

4. The all have women Deputy Prime Ministers

So how predictable am I?

But who knows, maybe in the next year or two Australia will be included in the answers to question 2 - or even question 1 - could be exciting!

Happy New Year everyone

The true story about Christmas reindeer

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:30:53 +1100

This is interesting - according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, while both male and female reindeer grow antlers in the summer each year, male reindeer drop their antlers at the beginning of winter, usually late November to mid-December.

Female reindeer retain their antlers till after they give birth in the spring. Therefore, according to every historical rendition depicting Santa's reindeer, every single one of them, from Rudolph to Blitzen, had to be a girl.

We should have known.....

Only women would be able to drag a fat man in a red velvet suit all around the world in one night and not get lost!

Merry Christmas to you all

A good woman

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:55:00 +1100

I am extremely pleased to learn that a good woman has been appointed as the CEO of the public service organisation that most Australians have personal contact with: Centrelink, which will soon be merged with Medicare.

But at the risk of being a bit churlish about the process followed for this appointment I would also like to point out that the last two Centrelink CEOs were men, and they were appointed via a much more common process - that is, they were just appointed to the jobs because someone in power thought they would be the best person - just like that. No advertising, no interviewing, no process, just 'have a job!'.

There have been three appointments for Centrelink's CEO in nearly as many years, and only once was the job advertised.

Carolyn Hogg, who won the job this time around, has been acting in the role. On and off, for some time.

In fact, she was acting in the CEO role on the previous two occasions when the job was just handed to a bloke.

This time the job was advertised. And a woman got it. OK? Get my point?

Thanks guys.

The Un-United Federation of Australia

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:22:00 +1100

I'm a bit slow at times, I know, but now that I've read Annabel Crabb's most enlightening analysis about Australia's current political leaders, I finally understand why none of them really do it for me.

She describes Rudd as The Nerd and Abbott as The Jock and she is dead right! And of course, Australians love a stoush between jocks and nerds, don't they. Well, some Australians do.

The problem is, neither jocks nor nerds have the leadership qualities of empathy, understanding, compassion, caring or nurturing which are absolutely essential to transforming anything, particularly a country. And this country needs a bit of transformation if you ask most women.

Both nerds and jocks are stereotypes, and male stereotypes at that. The jock is your command and control type of leader, and the nerd can't do anything without having commissioned at least 50 research articles arguing the pros and cons and then commissioning another 50 researchers to analyse the first 50 articles. That is, they usually can't do anything.

It is sort of like having an extremist-to-the-very-far-right who gives a stuff James Kirk on one side (Abbott), and an even more emotionally detached and logical Dr Spock (Rudd) on the other - without any respect or love between them.

I guess that would make us the Most Un-United Federation of Australia, with women playing the part of the aliens.

What hope is there? Beam me up Scotty.

Women's rights are human rights

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:14:59 +1100

Securing a more equal footing for women in Australia cannot occur in isolation. I strongly believe that we need a Human Rights Act to strengthen the position of women and at the same time to address human rights abuses.

The reasons for this lie in the following two facts.

Fact#1:

Women are more likely than men to experience poverty, abuse and discrimination.

Fact#2:

Women are over-represented in Australia among the poor, the disabled, the marginally employed, the sick, the isolated, and those whose responsibilities for caring for others exclude them from community life.

Now is the time to act!

Support for a Human Rights Act or Charter is high - in March 2009, over 80% of Australians supported the introduction of a new law to protect human rights, 85% of them believing that this should be a high priority for government.

However, call me a pessimist, I can't help feeling that if we don't make a lot of noise about this right now, it will slither away from us in the same way that so many other grand ideas have slithered away over the past few years.

I strongly support a Human Rights Act. If you do too, why don't you state your support by signing our petition.

Sex, holidays and Schoolies

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:34:39 +1100

When my kids were at high school, we had a little checklist before they went out. Money? ID? Hankie? Condom? It was sort of a joke, but it was also a reminder that whatever they were doing, I wanted to be sure they were safe.

In an effort to make sure more Australians stay safe, Marie Stopes International has organised Australia's first Sexual Health Week from November 9-15 this year, in an effort to teach men, women and schoolies how to look after their sexual health.

This week is timed to coincide with the end of year festivities. Office parties, New Year celebrations and the dreaded Schoolies Week will all take place over the next few months.

During Schoolies Week lots of kids party on, and many experience sex for the first time as they test out the limits of their freedom. Sexual Health Week aims to make sure that there are a minimum number of sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancies occurring.

Sexualhealthweek.com.au provides a lot of information, including some suggestions for sexual decision-making.

There is also some fun stuff - a Kiss and Tell survey and a really silly game called Love Bugs Battle!

It takes a while to load, but check it out, Schoolies! Check out the rest of the web site - you never know, you might even learn something.

Have fun, and stay safe.