Christian lobbying and politicians' self-interest

The Power Index is a sister publication of Crikey. Its purpose is to identify ‘who really runs Australia’. Last Tuesday its focus was the ‘powerful people in religion’.

There was a list of 18 leaders or representatives of faith communities such as the Australian Christian Lobby’s Jim Wallace. It created the impression that religious organisations are increasingly spreading the word by lobbying and talking up the ‘Christian vote’. 

Religious leaders are using their clout and followers to influence the national debate on topics such as same-sex marriage, euthanasia, abortion. ... Religious lobby groups are making noise – and getting results. 

The Power Index says churches are increasing their reliance on lobbying because fewer Australians are attending church services. This is obviously part of a more complex scenario that includes the power of the media and popular culture to shape opinion that once would have been influenced by clergy and religious teachers. 

While many of the religious groups are lobbying in support of what they perceive to be wholesome causes, the activity of lobbying itself can be far from wholesome. John Warhurst writes in his 2007 book Behind Closed Doors about the methods of disgraced Western Australian Labor identity Brian Burke, one of the country’s most successful and notorious lobbyists.

His view of human nature ... is that people always have a price. He ‘identifies people’s self-interest.’ He has a pejorative, malign view of humanity. He is ‘a very good judge of weak character.’ .. [He] ‘reads faces like other people read books.’ 

It’s debatable how much the average Canberra lobbyist has in common with Brian Burke in terms of how low they will go in order to secure the support of a politician. But aside from the level of resources at their disposal, it seems that the lower they are prepared to go in manipulating the will of a politician, the more impressive the result is likely to be. 

It is challenging for lobbyists attempting to appeal to the ‘better angels’ of our politicians. That is exactly what, for example, the Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce, is doing. Its rival Clubs Australia simply has to remind politicians of the seats their party will lose in the next election if it supports anti-gambling measures such as pre-commitment technology. 

Lobbying often involves issues that confront the interests of powerful mining or business associations. But sometimes important changes can be achieved by small groups with a simple transparent approach to lobbying and a steadfast commitment to their cause. One such ‘not so powerful’ lobby is Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans (ACRATH).

ACRATH has on its website an inspiring account of its ‘Canberra Advocacy Visit 2012’, which took place last month. It had four requests to make of politicians to improve services for trafficked people in Australia. It urged MPs to support the Crimes Legislation Amendments (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012. The bill was passed in the lower house in the delegation’s presence, on 21 August, with the work of ACRATH acknowledged in Hansard. 

Lobbies such as ACRATH and the Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce are doing the right thing by attempting to appeal to the sense of compassion in our politicians. We can only trust in human nature that they will ultimately prevail. Unfortunately other groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby think in terms of the 'Christian vote' and its appeal is to the self-interest of politicians.

The Paralympics as a work in progress

The Paralympics have been paired with the Olympic Games since Rome 1960. They are a good and necessary fit. 

In many ways, they represent an antidote to the Olympic movement, which fosters the deification of athletes. The Paralympics account for, and affirm and celebrate, diversity in the physique of human beings.

The low point of the modern Olympics is often identified as the 1936 'Nazi' Olympics in Berlin, which Hitler saw as an opportunity to promote his government's ideals of racial and physical supremacy.

The Nazis' attitude to disabled people makes it scarcely possible to imagine a Paralympics paired with the Berlin 1936 Olympics.

They took the Darwinian idea of the survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, and applied it to human beings. Those who did not fit the definition were excluded, left on the margins and persecuted. Many disabled people were killed because they were considered an unnecessary burden on society.

The theme of last week's Paralympics opening ceremony was new enlightenment, which was personified in the the event's star Stephen Hawking. It spoke of a new world of inclusion that does not limit human potential.

It shows how far we've come, with the relatively recent United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the widespread acceptance by Australians of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in the background. Disability is becoming accepted as part of the new normal.

But in celebrating this achievement, we need to acknowledge the limits of the Paralympics in their current ability to break down barriers between ability and disability in general. In many ways its emphasis is on cultivating physically disabled — but intellectually agile — superheroes such as the South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius (pictured). Instead of merely physical prowess, the Paralympics has become a showcase of 'mind over body'. 

In itself this is a great achievement. But where does it leave those with an intellectual disability? Sadly, it would seem that the Paralympics breaks down the kinship that exists between the physically and the intellectually disabled, leading to a more decisive marginalising of the latter. 

One of the most insightful thinkers on intellectual disability in recent decades has been French-Canadian philosopher Jean Vanier. His emphasis is that a common fragility is what unites us as human beings. This definition of humanity ensures that the intellectually disabled and those suffering mental illness are not at all marginalised. But it is not compatible with the Paralympics' stress on performance.

This suggests that the Paralympics is a work in progress. Its remarkable achievement to date has been to stress the mind part of the mind-body equation. To this, a truly inclusive Paralympics would need to add 'spirit'. This would surely complete the extrication from the Nazi influence.

Rudd's forgettery and the things that don't matter

The word ‘forgettery’ was mentioned several times by Kevin Rudd during the Eureka Street Discerning Conversation at Melbourne University earlier this month. 

It’s not listed in the Oxford or Macquarie dictionaries, possibly because it originated in the Rudd household and may not have gone far beyond. Rudd said: ‘Mum always had a saying: just put it into your forgettery’. 

He used the term to indicate what he does with criticism he’s been subjected to over the years, such as that referring to his reported tantrums and harsh treatment of staff.

Is putting unpleasant or shameful memories out of our mind a sign of arrogance, or instead the outcome of a proper discerning of what needs to be taken seriously?

There are some clues in an interview which Annabel Crabbe conducted with his wife Therese Rein for Fairfax in 2009. They suggest it was apt to use it during an event that was titled Things That Matter.

In dealing with her anger over the publication of photos of her gym workout, Rein said she put it into the forgettery. It’s the same for opposition and media outrage over the Rudd Family's use of a publicly funded maid to babysit their youngest teenager during their early days at the Lodge in 2008. The forgettery is for the things thatdon’t matter.

‘All that stuff goes straight to the Forgettery,’ Rein told Crabbe. ‘Stuff that actually doesn't matter goes in there. Stuff that's not important, stuff that if you carried it with you would be a burden.’

On the other hand, some things do matter, and we need to carry them with us until we can atone for them. These may or may not include items in Rudd’s forgettery. But they certainly included the treatment of Indigenous Australians, and also the Forgotten Australians mistreated in institutional child care last century, and children sexually abused by church officials. 

The media and opposition are programmed to act as watchdogs. They – and indeed the public – will not allow things that matter to remain in the forgettery. Former prime minister John Howard put the treatment of Indigenous Australians into his forgettery. Subsequent support for the Apology showed this to be a misjudgment of public sentiment. 

As for the church, Bishop Anthony Fisher appears to have had the forgettery in mind when he provoked outrage during World Youth Day 2008 by trying to insist a sexual abuse case belonged there. Before later apologising, he spoke disparagingly of those who were ‘dwelling crankily ... on old wounds’.

This raises the question of the motivation for keeping some things in the forgettery while allowing others to be retrieved from it. The identification of the truth in a way that leads to the righting of the wrongs of the past would seem appropriate justification. But too often, it is done as an act of political or psychological vindictiveness.

Julia Gillard has had her own forgettery raided during the past week with media coverage and opposition questions concerning events that occurred two decades ago at the end of her period of employment as a lawyer with Slater & Gordon.

At her media conference on Thursday, she lashed out at the ‘misogynists and the nut jobs on the internet’, which would seem to be fair criticism. As would criticising The Australian newspaper for using already resolved issues from the past to prosecute its anti-Labor political agenda.

A forgettery is not sealed like the confessional, but it should not be opened unless it promotes justice for the individual and the common good.

Only good policy will save Labor

Following Government whip Joel Fitzgibbon's comments on the ABC's Q&A last week, it was clear there is a growing consensus that 'time is running out for Julia Gillard'.

It's commonly assumed that this refers to the need for her to turn around her performance in the opinion polls, as if that is an end in itself. But electors are more interested in a government that can enact good policy for the wellbeing of the country, and time is running out for her to do that before the 2013 election.

When Labor was elected in 2007, Kevin Rudd was given a mandate to respond to the 'great moral and economic challenge of our time' with legislation for a carbon emissions trading scheme. He lost his nerve and trashed the mandate. Voters subsequently trashed Labor because Gillard maintained the fixation with opinion polls that had caused Rudd's downfall.

The passage of time showed that it didn't make a great deal of difference whether the leader was Gillard or Rudd. In all likelihood, it doesn't really matter who leads Labor to the 2013 election. What is more important is that they are able to demonstrate good policy achievement with a minimum of political compromise made to secure the popular vote.

Labor's judgment on the degree of necessary political  compromise has been lacking. It is consequently on track to allowing the Coalition to win the 2013 election by default.

Miriam Lyons of the Centre for Policy Developmentwrites of good policy ideas that are considered 'politically toxic'. An example is the inheritance tax recommended by the Henry Review. It would be a 'fair and efficient' solution to the problem of a shrinking revenue stream that comes with an ageing population. Such ideas are often championed by conservative groups, with the International Energy Agency wanting fossil fuel subsidies eliminated and warning that we must stop building coal-fired power plants within five years.

Back in 2010, the Edmund Rice Centre published abackground paper in its Just Comment series. It fleshed out Tony Abbott's stated vision at the time for a 'kinder, gentler polity' that he thought might enable him to work with the Independents in a minority government. 

Tony Windsor, whom Abbott was courting, favoured kindness and gentility, rather than bashing heads or killing good policy. Windsor's approach to dealing with the rural backlash to the politically challenging Murray-Darling water buyback scheme was to acknowledge there was no 'one size fits all' solution. Politicians had to visit farming communities to 'walk slowly with the people that are affected and see if there's a range of options that will fit their particular stressed circumstance'.  

Gaining the trust of the electorate, rather than stoking fears about invasions of boat people or industrial relations reforms, is a better way to win an election. But it takes time. And yes, it is running out.

Sin, spin and sex abuse in the church and military

Church leaders have a responsibility to protect the reputation of the institution of the Church. They are also custodians of a very high moral duty to protect the most vulnerable in their care, including sexual abuse victims.

It is a common criticism that they have previously given priority to looking after the reputation of the institution over the needs of sexual abuse victims, who have suffered further as a result.

On the other side, many critics are not obviously concerned about the rights of the Church's 'good people' and positive values represented by the institution.

It appears they wish to see the needs of victims addressed in isolation.

There is goood reason for suggesting the needs of victims are more important than those of the institution, but it is not helpful in the long term to assign priority to one or the other. Because the sexual abuse problem is endemic, the long term common good requires a more wholistic strategy.

Last week the Australian Defence Force (ADF) was subject to similar criticism following the release of the damning DLA Piper report into sexual abuse over many years. Just as Catholic Church leaders were accused of harbouring past abusers by not reporting them to the police, media headlines highlighted the DLA Piper report's revelations that 'un-prosecuted rapists' remain in 'senior positions in the armed forces'. 

This is quite significant because the ADF has always had the capacity to deal with its own through the court martial system, which allow criminal sanction. By comparison, the Church has only been able to inform civil authorities and defrock priest perpetrators.

Retired Major General Jim Molan commented at The Drum on Thursday on the 'not inconsequential' issue of the reputation of the ADF. However he insisted that protecting the reputation of the ADF 'must never hamper justice for victims', who are 'the first priority of action'.

It is pleasing that he puts the needs of victims ahead of the reputation of the ADF. But it is a flawed strategy to consider reputation and the rights of victims as two unrelated challenges that must be addressed separately. Increasingly it appears that we're talking about a problem that is endemic and not confined to a rogue element.

Molan explained that the ADF 'needs to remain the most respected institution in Australia, as it was in a recent survey, to attract people and funds to do its job'. Separately, he argues, it 'can respond empathetically to each individual abuse case without accepting that this puts a stain on all the ADF and all that it does'. 

Contrary to Molan's argument, we believe that it is necessary for the ADF to accept the 'stain' before it responds empathetically. The very act of accepting the stain will demonstrate the ADF's capacity for strength, honesty and justice in the way that it goes about confronting serious internal issues. This is a much more effective way of ensuring its good reputation for the long term than a slick public relations expertise, which is the common quick fix for reputational damage.

A contrite ADF that acts righteously within will always be in a better position to prosecute just wars than an organisation with an apparently good reputation that is founded on hubris or spin.

If Molan's views reflect those of the ADF leadership, the Church is ahead of the ADF, in that the Church has moved in recent years towards accepting that the sexual abuse problem is endemic and not merely the result of the behaviour of rogue priests. A major turning point came when Pope Benedict XVI told reporters in 2010 that the problem was 'the sin inside the Church'. Implicitly he was saying that acknowledging the institutional Church's sin — or stain — is the precondition for forgiveness and reparative justice for abuse victims.

If — and only if — this attitude filters down to local dioceses, the Church can expect to be able to offer justice to sexual abuse victims, and rebuild its reputation at the same time. A joint lesson for the Church and the ADF.

News and entertainment a difficult mix

e know them will effectively cease to exist within a few short years. 

Many readers will miss the familiarity and romance of print. But more disturbing is the likelihood that the dignified authority of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age mastheads will be lost when the more ephemeral, entertainment-oriented electronic edition is all we have. 

The comparative lightness of the online content is consistent with the increasingly widespread trend to blend news with entertainment in electronic and online media in general. In fact the appeal of this is such that many, perhaps most, Australians have their news delivered to them within a form of popular entertainment rather than ‘serious’ news publications and programs.

It is often breakfast radio presenters such as Kyle and Jackie O who shape young people’s perceptions of the world with their mostly offhand and anti-social jokes about events and issues of national and world significance. Or the more socially responsible but nevertheless trivialising news oriented comedy programs such as Channel Ten’s The Project, as well as short-run series such as last year’s Hamster Wheel from The Chaser and ABC1’s current Friday offering Shaun Micallef’s Mad as Hell.

These shows are influenced by highly successful and sometimes incisive American news comedies including The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. 

Such blending of news with comedy is the subject of acomment by Californian Jesuit James T. Keane in the latest issue of America magazine. Keane writes of the usurping of the traditional network news bulletins by the likes of Colbert and Stewart, who ‘deliver news wrapped in comedy, pop-culture references and often an ironic distance from momentous historical events’.

Significantly he is not entirely disturbed by this phenomenon. He argues that it is naïve to assume that Walter Cronkite could be trusted to deliver ‘unvarnished truth’. Moreover he suggests the comedies provide a kind of antidote to the xenophobia and introspective consumerism fostered by network news bulletins. 

Mainstream news programs routinely report on the ways in which ‘our way of life’ is being threatened or destroyed and seldom acknowledge that such ways of life are unsustainable or contrary to the public good.

It’s a positive that satire provides much-needed perspective on traditional news, and that it has moved beyond a niche to educate the masses to consume the news more critically. But regrettable that the iconoclastic tone of many of these comedians of the left lacks the values and moral centre needed to counter the xenophobia and play to self-interest of the network bulletins and the right-wing news entertainment programs such as The O’Reilly Factor on FoxNews.

If Fairfax Online remains dominated by an imperative to entertain, we should hope that it finds a way of retaining the sense of values that have long given the printed broadsheets their authority.

Coalition of the willing targets messenger Assange

Julian Assange effectively conducted an inquiry into the quality of western democracy and found it wanting, if not a sham. It is well known how he did this through the WikiLeaks organisation, which published often confidential information that impugned US and allied war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and much more.

The world was shocked, and it was up to the US to choose how to react. They could opt for contrition, or they could discredit and shoot the messenger. 

Contrition would be humiliating but could save democracy by giving it a fresh start. On the other hand, pursuing Assange — as they did bin Laden — would play well at home, but elsewhere might make the US seem like an international thug that uses human rights as a smokescreen for its totalitarian behaviour and its disregard for the lives of the ordinary citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq. 

There is little doubt that they have chosen the latter. They are confident they will get Assange in the end as they got bin Laden, and they are waiting patiently for the pieces to fall into place.

The US pursuit of Assange is being played out with what is largely the cooperation of other western democracies. Last week the legal system in the UK rejected his appeal against extradition to Sweden.

Guardian columnist Amy Goodman pointed out that the UK government could overrule the court if it wanted to. It did this when it intervened in the 1998 Pinochet extradition case when it allowed the former dictator to return home to Chile. It looks as if they did a favour for Pinochet that they won't for Assange. Are crimes against humanity more forgivable than the allegations without charges that Assange is facing in Sweden?

Meanwhile US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is enjoying a warm welcome in Sweden for what is coincidentally the first such visit from a US official for years. Not surprisingly, Assange is not listed on herwebsite among the topics for discussion. Do we need to wait for WikiLeaks to reveal the actual content of discussions, and the likelihood that Assange ranks high on the list of topics? Or have we not learned the lessons of WikiLeaks?

Rightfully Australia should have no small part to play in the fate of one of its own. But do we ourselves care whether Assange ends up with a lengthy jail sentence or possibly the death penalty for his whistle blowing? 

Some do. Last December former prime minister Malcolm Fraser and several dozen public figures called on then Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd to ensure Assange is protected from 'rendition' to the US. The signers expressed concern that 'the chances of Mr Assange receiving a fair trial in the United States appear remote'. 

Unfortunately Rudd's initial support for Assange was not sustained, and on Thursday his successor Bob Carr almost laughably reduced the issue to quantifying the support Assange has received, insisting that 'there's been no Australian who's received more consular support in a comparable period than Mr Assange'.

As if Carr, as a self-professed man of letters, cannot see the broader implications of Assange's plight for the future of democracy.

Mob rule on Craig Thomson

tralian officials 'have a tendency to follow the letter of the law and refuse to think outside the box'. But she considers that a small price to pay for the increased wellbeing her family enjoys living in this country. She wrote:

Coming from a relatively lawless country, it has been difficult to adapt to the opposite scenario, where rules control people rather than the other way around. But, having said that, this is what makes Australia a functional, effective, efficient, law-abiding place, and it is precisely the reason we chose to move here.

Rules in general, and the rule of law in particular, promote the common good ahead of sectional interests. More often than not, refugees have fled lawless societies in search of the protection of the law. A well functioning rule of law is a haven for people of good will. 

It is particularly incumbent upon politicians to respect the judiciary. But on Thursday our near neighbour Papua New Guinea took a significant step along the road from the rule of law to dictatorship. Prime Minister Peter O'Neill had the country's chief justice Sir Salamo Injia arrested and charged with sedition. Sir Salamo had upheld a significant ruling that did not serve the personal interest of the prime minister and instead benefited his rival Sir Michael Somare.

By contrast, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard did little more than express disappointment last August when the High Court ruled unlawful her government's Malaysia solution, which it was relying upon to arrest the drift of political support from the Government to the Opposition. 

Former Chief Justice Sir Gerard Brennan reflected in 1997:

Should a judge be accountable to the government of the day? Certainly not. Should the judge be accountable in some way to an interest group or to the public? The rule of law would be hostage to public relations campaigns or majoritarian interests. Should a judgment be fashioned to satisfy popular sentiment? That would be the antithesis of the rule of law.

Judgment of Craig Thomson should wait for the decision of a judge in a court of law. However, popular sentiment and a populist Opposition have taken hold of the judgment of Thomson to the extent that a judge deciding not to convict him might almost expect the fate of PNG's Sir Salamo Injia.

The first conseqence of mob rule is injustice to an individual. But once it takes hold, the real casualty would be Australia's status as a desirable place to live. Migrants and refugees would no longer see Australia as the place to come to enjoy the protection afforded by the rule of the law. The politicians could finally have their wish because the boats might stop.

Give circumcision inequality the snip

There are convincing arguments both for and against infant male circumcision. Medical authorities supportingthe practice describe it as a form of vaccination. Thoseagainst regard it as potentially risky surgery that is 'unnecessary, irreversible and harmful'. Unlike female circumcision, there appears to be no certain case for the state to determine whether or not non-therapeutic infant male circumcision should take place. 

In 2009 a detailed issues paper of the Tasmania Law Reform Institute canvassed the criminalisation of the practice on human rights grounds. This was a response to calls for clarification of the law to determine if those performing the procedure could be charged with committing assault or abuse, and whether parental consent is a mitigating factor.

Tasmania's then Children's Commissioner Paul Mason said: 'Everyone is entitled to bodily integrity, to protection of their own body from injury by another without their consent.'

But doctors advocating the procedure as a preventative health measure can also mount a human rights argument along the lines of every child having the right to access the best available health outcomes. It would be self-defeating if the 'protection' afforded by one right prevented the 'access' offered by another.

The obvious problem is that infants are not capable of giving consent, and experts argue that the procedure becomes problematic once they're old enough to decide. 

Necessarily it falls to parents to make an informed and responsible decision, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is subsequently important that they have the means to exercise the option they've chosen. Regrettably this is not always the case, and their decision can be reversed by their economic circumstances. Middle and higher income families could easily afford the cost of up to $800 but low income families cannot.

The cost will become a major issue if the Federal Government goes ahead with plans to remove non-therapeutic infant male circumcision from the list of procedures that qualify for Medicare payments unless it is found to be necessary in particular cases. There is already inequity in the fact that public hospitals do not perform infant male circumcisions in most states.

Advocates are calling for an end to the ban on the procedure in public hospitals and a substantial increase in the Medicare benefit for the operation.

It is empowering for parents to have the ability to contribute to the quality of life of their children though responsible decision making, but alienating if inequitable funding models make decisions for them.

Hockey and Thatcher's 'no entitlement' is bad economics

In Australia we've just had a Federal Budget that sought to produce a surplus at all costs. In Europe they're reacting to pressure to agree to crippling austerity measures.

Yet it's quite possible that both initiatives will fail because they rely on narrow measures of economic wellbeing. Hard-line doctrinaire strategies that include cuts to social welfare can hurt people in the short term and the long term.

The esteemed economist Joseph Stiglitz has blamed Europe's current predicament on political pressure to yield to what might be called fundamentalist economics.

In a recent interview with The European, he talks about 'overly simplified', 'distorted', and indeed 'faulty' pre-GFC models that 'encouraged policy-makers to believe that the markets would solve all the problems'. Yet, he says, the 'narrow-minded' free-market economists responsible for the global financial crisis 'have not revised their opinions'.

The economists in question argue that demographic change, and the end of the industrial age, have made the welfare state financially unsustainable. They say that cutting debt means reducing the cost of welfare payments. Stiglitz counters that the Scandinavian countries 'all have strong social protection and they are all growing'. He is particularly critical of the economists' fixation on GDP numbers.

'I don't want to talk about GDP anymore, I want to talk about what is happening to most citizens. Even the Right is beginning to agree that GDP is not a good measure of economic progress. The notion of the welfare of most citizens is almost a no-brainer.'

Stiglitz would strongly disagree with Joe Hockey's recent landmark 'End of the Age of Entitlement'address because of his belief there is a clear and important link between human wellbeing and economic prosperity.

Stiglitz is well known for the his participation in the study commissioned by former French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2008 to assess how well GDP is able to measure society's wellbeing. Its conclusion was that most people can be worse off even though average income is increasing.

Understandably Hockey provoked outrage with his suggestion that we should rely on families rather than the state for social welfare. History could well rank Hockey's 'there's no such thing as entitlement' alongside Thatcher's infamous 'there is no such thing as society'. Thatcher declared 'there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation'.

Hockey's premise that high social spending equals debt and decline reflects the GDP fetish that Stiglitz regrets in the fundamentalist economists. It is deaf to the cries of anguish of individuals such as Dimitris Christoulas, the 77-year-old retired Greek pharmacist who took his own life because he could no longer afford to feed himself.

Moreover it refuses to countenance the perfectly sound economic argument that expenditure on the welfare of those who are marginalised is an investment in the social wellbeing of all of us.