John Howard has finally shown some spine by telling his Health Minister, Tony Abbott, to pull in his head regarding the abortion issue.

Mr Howard yesterday issued a veiled warning to Mr Abbott to keep his personal views on abortion separate from his running of the health portfolio.

"An individual is entitled to express their views, providing they don't in any way administer their policy responsibilities in a way that conflicts with Government policy," Mr Howard said.

And it looks like a private member's bill mightn't be on the cards after all ....

Despite having last week left the door open for MPs to introduce a private member's bill on abortion, Mr Howard said yesterday that he did not expect this to happen when Federal Parliament resumed tomorrow.

From wimpy equivocation to strong direction in a little over two weeks. The opinion polling results must have come in.

Opinion polls or not, there's been no clammer from the public for change on this issue. Howard rightly realises that the issue would cause a divisive debate in sections of the community, one that wouldn't change the other side's views on the issue.

The current arrangements leave the subject up to the individual to decide. It's best left that way.

You could have banked on it. John Howard is taking his usual spineless approach to a difficult issue, this time abortion. Prevaricate by saying the government is not planning to change anything, then leave the door open for (or encourage?) someone else to take the lead and introduce a private member's bill into parliament.

And it looks like someone, not identified yet, is going to do just that. But what is he hoping to achieve? The only national action the Federal Government can take is to limit medicare rebates for abortions. They can outlaw the procedure entirely in the ACT and the Northern Territory, but they have no jurisdiction to make those changes for the rest of the country.

Medicare changes will hit financially disadvantaged women by making them pay the full fee for the procedure. Banning abortion in the territories will turn the clock back 20 years, when it was common for women to travel interstate to have the procedure. Wealthier women, the Liberal Party's natural constituency, won't be adversely effected by either measure.

There's been no talk from the god botherers about welfare changes to financially support disadvantaged women who are forced to go through with the pregnancy. For that matter, they don't seem to be that keen on doing anything that may prevent women from becoming pregnant in the first place, such as providing sex and contraception education. What these arch conservatives really want is a total ban on abortion, and no sex education apart from teaching to 'just say "no".'

The coming parliamentary debate is about changing arrangements that the majority of the population is happy with. Abortion law is and should be about letting women make a difficult choice based on their own beliefs and situations. It's not for a bunch of middle aged males to dictate what women do with their lives and bodies.

Ideally, Howard should kill this issue stone dead by not allowing the changes to be brought forward.
As this is unlikely to happen, bring forward the conscience vote, and hope that the majority of parliamentarians have the common sense to leave well alone.

Thankfully, I don't have to travel by train any more. As a school student, I endured nine years of train travel across Sydney to my 'elite' private school. Trains in the 60s and 70s were not the air conditioned affairs of today; they were single decked 'red rattlers,' with manual doors and no air conditioning. Hot in summer, freezing in winter, leaked when it rained.

In the past two decades, the rolling stock has improved enormously, but the reliability of the service hasn't. Breakdowns, delays, occasional strikes. Same as ever.

What a contrast to Melbourne. They have a public transport system to die for. Trains that run on time and trams that run everywhere, every few minutes, even on Sunday. Clean and well patronised. An integrated ticketing system. Compared to Sydney, light years ahead.

In Melbourne, going by the signs on the rolling stock, the system is run by private companies. I'm not sure how that works. Like most modern city transport systems, it seems unlikely that they'd make a profit, so the companies would have to be heavily subsidised, but who cares? The system functions.

Melbourne public transport used to be government run, so I assume it was privatised by the Kennet government.

Compare this to recent events in Sydney, where the rail bureaucracy culture dates back to the 50s. A driver shortage exists since a large number of the aging drivers were retired on health grounds. It takes the best part of two years to train more. The remaining drivers claim to be overworked, so start taking a lot of sick leave. There's chaos as services are cancelled. Management responds by slashing weekend services to make more drivers available during the week.

The drivers' union knows they've got the government in a corner, and asks for a 25% wage increase. They respond by offering 12% in return for workplace reform, and a bribe to prevent the drivers from going on strike. It hasn't worked and it looks like they'll out next week.

This sort of issue plays in the hands of the conservatives, who point to a union dominated organisation that is immune to reform. The government backbenchers know just how damaging this issue is, predicting that if the problems aren't solved by the next election, it could bring down the government.

The Sydney rail authority management and its workforce are at the crossroads. If they spit in the face of the government and the public to the extent that Labor loses office, then the incoming conservative government will only be too happy to enforce Kennet like reforms on the organisation. The parties can either bring in meaningful and sustainable change now, or risk having it imposed in the future.

Ideologically, I'd prefer the former way. In practice, I'll back the other if it makes the system work.

The editorial of today's soon to be mogulised Sun Herald, (no link) suggested that the real motivation for the abortion debate kicked off by Tony Abbott may be to ease the sale of Telstra.

Queensland senator-elect Barnaby Joyce has hinted at trading his vote on the final sell off of Telstra to the restriction of Medicare-funded abortions.

A reminder; Joyce was the Queensland National Party senate candidate whose election gave control of the Senate to the government.

I don't believe the Telstra sale would be Tony Abbott's motivation; he is a serious Catholic and is in communication with Cardinal George Pell's on various issues, as shown when he was caught out on Lateline during the election campaign.

But I wouldn't put it past others in the government to try this on. Let's hope there are some Senators who don't confuse a moral issue with an economic one.