‘THE QUALITY AND NOT ONLY THE QUANTITY OF AUSTRALIA'S PEOPLE’

This article is an examination of Ruby Rich (1888–1988), an Australian feminist, concert pianist, Zionist, pacifist and eugenicist. Although much lauded by her peers, Rich has gone largely unexamined by historians, particularly in contrast to the recent research on her feminist contemporaries Mary Montgomerie Bennett and Bessie Rischbieth. I draw attention to Rich's remarkable life and varied experiences, and use her example to explore the relationship between feminism and eugenics in twentieth-century Australia. From the early 1920s, Rich became a prominent figure within several Australian feminist organisations and in 1926 was appointed the founding president of the Racial Hygiene Association of NSW, an organisation which espoused eugenics. Although it is often assumed that eugenics is innately anti-feminist, Rich remained an active champion of both feminism and racial hygiene for over 50 years. Her example therefore provides an opportunity to trace the unlikely sympathies between these two movements, and highlights the extent to which eugenics found acceptance among progressive members of the Australian community.     

Latent fingermark visualisation using reduced-pressure sublimation of copper phthalocyanine

The sublimation of copper phthalocyanine (CuPc) at a temperature of 400°C under conditions of reduced pressure is shown to be an effective method of developing latent fingermarks on certain types of surface. Preliminary experiments on a limited selection of surfaces including paper, plastic and ceramic tiles were carried out using a simple apparatus consisting of a vacuum desiccator and a resistive heater. CuPc from the gas phase condenses preferentially on fingermark deposits, revealing deep blue patterns with excellent ridge detail clarity on light coloured surfaces. The technique is shown to be most effective on porous surfaces such as paper, but relatively ineffective on non-porous ceramic and plastic surfaces.     

Keeping mum about dad: "contracts" to protect gamete donor anonymity

This article considers the legal status of so-called contracts for anonymity between fertility clinics and donors of gametes that were made in the period before legislation authorising disclosure. It notes that while clinics frequently cite the existence of these "contracts" to argue against retrospective legislation authorising disclosure of the donor's identity, they may be nothing more than one-sided statements of informed consent. However, the article notes that even if an agreement between a donor and a clinic is not contractual, it does not follow that a person conceived through assisted reproductive technology has any right of access to the identity of the donor. The writer has not been able to locate examples of written promises by the clinics promising anonymity. There are written promises by the donors not to seek the identity of the recipients. These promises do not bind the resulting offspring nor do they appear to be supported by consideration. The article suggests that the basis for any individual donor to restrain a clinic from revealing their identity may be found in promissory estoppel. Nevertheless, there is no real issue in Australia concerning clinics revealing these details absent legislative authority. The issue is whether parliaments will legislate to authorise the disclosure. The article notes that it would be rare for parliaments to legislate to overturn existing legal contracts but suggests that the contract argument may not be as strong as has been thought.