Coalition Says no to openness

How many times are the Coalition going to change the reason for not wanting Treasury to cost their polices. So far we have had:-
- We have adequate costing done by a Third Party.
- We don't trust Treasury (what will happen if they win?)
- They are confidential and breaks the Westminster system (what??? how)

We need much more open Government - the coalition seem to want continue along the way it alway has.

Do the Coalition realise that the election is over?

I would have thought it would have taken Tony Abbott relatively little effort to convince the independents to allow the Coalition to form government.  They are conservative in nature and would more closely align to that side of politics.

The requests that the independents have asked of both leaders are entirely reasonable, yet it would seem that that Tony Abbott still think that he in campaign mode with his refusal to allow treasury to cost the Coalitions policies on the basis of potential 'leaks'.  If the costings are correct will deliver the expected savings and outcomes that is contained in them then why does it matter if their are leaks or not.  Any leak would just confirm that they are correct.  From the outside it appears that they have something to hide.

Maybe it is time to get on with proper consultation and stop the intransigence, Australians have voted and expect our parliament to form government.  As it stands it would seem the coalition is taking the my way or the high way line, which has the potential to hand the Labor government - hardly what is desired I would have thought.  The words 'snatch defeat from jaws victory' come to mind.

2010 Election - a lack of leadership.

Well it has taken me a couple days to gather my thoughts.  I was somewhat surprised by the result.  Despite the poor performance of Labor in campaigning and up to the election I believed that they went to the election with at least some plans for future.   To me the coalition seemed to want to undo a couple key Labor initiatives (namely the NBN and putting a price on carbon) but otherwise maintain the status quo.

Both sides fought disappointing negative campaigns and for the most part seemed to be seeking power for powers sake and little else.  Lies about Workchoices, lies about debt and lies about boat people from all sides.

At this stage it seems likely that the coalition will get the nod to form government from the independents and perhaps rightfully they should, they are not bereft of the divisions that are taking place within the Labor party.  Unfortunately this means that it is likely that the NBN will be canned.  I believe that this important infrastructure will only ever be built by government as the private sector will not undertake a project with that risk profile or length of time before it get a commercial return.  It will disappointing to see it go and if does it we will be stuck with poor speeds and the domination of Telstra for a long time yet.

I often wonder if Australia will just become an economic backwater, dying just like many towns in rural Australia.  There seems to be no appetite in the broader population for the kinds of reform that need to take place for Australia to continue to have sustained economic growth into the 21st century.  Be it taxation reform, reduced business regulation (Tony Abbott was quite right to say that parts of Workchoices were good), government infrastructure development or population policy.

Unfortunately not many of politicians are keen to take a role that defines a future for Australia, instead choosing to pander to fear and special interest groups.  Time will tell if the next parliament will do any better.  I don't hold out much hope.

Why some Christians frustrate me.

Tonight I had an extensive discussion with Sharon (my wife) on my issues with some segments of Christendom.

It turned into quite a heated argument in parts, but was good on the whole as it made me order my thoughts into a set of rational points.

On the whole I believe that I do believe that Christians desire a better society for all and want to see people live healthy, happy lives (not too sure about Eric Abetz though).  However in the broader society they are often seen as hypocritical, judgemental and ignorant.  Churches, especially the large ones, are seen as money grabbers that exist only for the enrichment of their leaders.

I recall a Christian songwriter sharing that when he spoke to people in pubs, that often they quite liked Jesus, but really didn't like Christians.

Why is this? Well I think it largely that while they have a vision of what healthy may look like, that have no idea on how to cope with those that don't share the same vision, nor do they have any idea of how to start the journey towards it.  In many cases they are similar to many other middle class people and have fear about a changing society.  I also believe that in some cases the vision that they have is at odds with the Bible.

To give some examples:

I don't doubt that many would disagree that for most people heroin use is very harmful.  In an ideal community we would not have heroin addicts.  But the reality is that we do and as such we need to provide services to them just like we do for any other health problem (addiction is a health issue).  I think part of an overall strategy is to provide safe injecting rooms for heroin users. Yet we have some segments of Christian representatives (eg Family First) suggesting that these are somehow bad policy and suggesting that we vote against any one that seeks to introduce them.  I think the reason that some Christians are opposed to these are, they are seen as promoting drug use (no evidence for that) and therefore pose a danger to others, notably their kids.  I also think that they somehow think that having these falls short of a desirable community as we suddenly acknowledge that we have drug use that we are unable to prevent.  So we see them rail against against anything that is seen to "approve" of drug use.  However I believe that this sort of harm minimisation in our less than perfect world is a Christian response to the problem of drug addiction and hence we I see Christian opposing this I get extremely frustrated.

Another example is providing condoms to teenagers to prevent the spread of sexual diseases and teenage pregnancies.  The response from many Christian groups is "well they shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage and we should preach abstinence".  This ignores the reality that many young people experiment with sex regardless of what the parents want and that providing condoms or not will not prevent this.  Again to me, while I think that having sex at a young age, without being bonded in other ways is hardly ideal and to young women in particular can, to a degree, be physiologically damaging, that we as Christians have a responsibility to reduce that additional harm caused by an un-wanted pregnancy or sexual disease.

I could go on.

To me if Christian want to create the community they desire that need to change their thinking.

- Want to reduce the abortion rate? provide places for those women who want to have to their baby, that gives them the security they need and assists them in reaching their life potential.

- Want to reduce drug usage?  Get alongside kids in schools and find out what their real issues are so that they don't seek drugs to find a happy place

- Want to keep families together?  Stop building ever larger worship centres and use that income instead to fund social workers.

James 2:15-17 says the following (The Message Translation)
For instance, you come upon an old friend dressed in rags and half-starved and say, “Good morning, friend! Be clothed in Christ! Be filled with the Holy Spirit!” and walk off without providing so much as a coat or a cup of soup—where does that get you? Isn’t it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense?

Whilst there are many Christians out doing this work, there are equally many that need to heed this message and take a good look at what Bible really says.

Why Labor will win the next federal election.

The press is running hot at the moment on how close the election is.

Frankly despite what the polls and the bookies say I think the new parliament will look pretty similar to the current one.  There might be one or two upsets (like the Greens winning Melbourne of the back of Lindsay Tanner's retirement) but that is about it.

Why?  Well I think that despite voters disappointment with the current government they will get to the ballot box on the 21st and realise that Tony Abbott is not Prime Ministerial material.  Just like the flirtation that we had Mark Latham at the end of the day voters will realise that he just won't cut it.

I firmly believe the Howard misread the electorate in the 2004 election as an overwhelming endorsement of him as opposed to a rejection of Latham.  In this the election we have the same factors, an electorate that is dissatisfied with the performance of the government and seeking a suitable alternative, they know however that Tony Abbott is not it.

ACL Australia Votes Brochure Right wing nut baggery?

It was with some reluctance that I read the ACL's Australia Votes brochure.  My impression of the ACL is that it largely represents the views of what is commonly classed as the "Religious Right" however it order to be fair I decided to go through it and see what they regard as Christian "Hotkey Issues".

The brochure contains 24 questions divided up into broken up into 10 categories.  They are Public Christianity, International Justice, Poverty, Life, Youth and Education, Family, Sexualisation of Children, Environment, Justice and Indigenous Issues.  After each question the there is the response from each major party.

So what does picture does it post of the ACL?  Did they portray the picture I expected?  Well surprisingly yes and no.

So things like this:

2. Prayer in parliament: 

The preamble to Australia’s Constitution states that our nation is “humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God”. Does your Party commit to maintaining the convention of opening Parliament each day exclusively with the Lord’s Prayer?

and this:

16. Marriage: 

Marriage is clearly defined in the Marriage Act as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Would your Party commit to support this definition for the life of the Government and beyond?

were unsurprising and to be expected.  Naturally there was also the standard religious freedom stuff in there as-well which was to expected and the questions were not specific to Christianity, rather more broadly based and for the most in line with I think.

But then there was some really good stuff.  For example:

3. Overseas aid: 

Will your Party confirm the current Government commitment to contribute 0.5% Gross National Income to international aid and development efforts by 2015? What timeline will it put in place to reach the internationally agreed target of 0.7% GNI?

6. Homelessness and housing affordability: 

According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, on any given night there are approximately 100,000 homeless Australians. What policies will your Party implement to address this problem? How will your Party respond to the issue of housing affordability?

13. Youth unemployment: 

The national youth unemployment rate is 17% but in some locations it is over 40%. What policies will your Party implement to support and encourage young Australians to engage in active employment?

24. Indigenous welfare: 

Social justice for indigenous people remains a major issue for Christian churches. What initiatives and policies would your Party introduce to ensure not only better health, housing, education and employment opportunities for indigenous Australians, but also to facilitate long-term social inclusion and a sense of hope and purpose for the first Australians? What would your Party do during the next term of Parliament to specifically address these goals

Decidedly leftist and it certainly inline with my value system.  So what I should think?  Are the ACL much further to left than I what I had given them credit for?  Well no I don't this so.  Many of the other questions, whilst on the surface were reasonable from a Christian perspective had an untone that painted a picture of intolerance and want to enforce a believe system of their design on believer and unbeliever alike.  Frankly I don't believe the Bible calls Christians to do this at all, rather it proposes that show we show others that Christianity offers a fulfilling and rich life and if you don't agree to this then well, that is your choice.

But for me the real clincher was this one:

23. Human rights Act: 

The National Human Rights Consultation recommended the enactment of a federal Human Rights Act. However many Christian churches and groups opposed a HRA because of little evidence of overseas versions improving human rights and their being used by activists to undermine freedom of religion. Given the time and expense of assessing Parliament’s present position on the HRA, will your Party rule out introducing a Human Rights Act or equivalent instrument in the next and subsequent parliament?

Really?? Christians opposed to human rights!  To me Jesus is the greatest advocate of human rights in history. Christians should be going to trenches to fight for them, not opposing legislation that would make them stronger.   I find this to be a most appalling stance and really just confirms my suspicion of this organisation as modern day Pharisees.

Election 2010 - What a drag!

Thanks for the pic ABC News!

Is anyone actually listening to what the pollies are saying this election?

Meaningless little policies that really won't change anything.

A government that went to the last election full of good policies that it couldn't effectively deliver, way to much talk and not enough get on with it.

The Liberal opposition that professes liberal policies, small government and less regulation, but is bringing in a set of policies that are a mile away from this and is determined to drive economic growth backwards by cutting government spending before the economy has fully recovered.

Needless fear about illegal arrivals who are not such a big issue and form less than 1% of all new immigration to Australia.  Promises about stopping boats that fail to recognise that unauthorised movement by people around the world has far greater relation to their security situation than it does to any laws enacted by the Australian parliament.

A Green movement that has a worthwhile social agenda - but who reject market economics out of hand.

When we had a decent party leader he was shot down by a bunch of old farts who didn't believe in climate change and a population that can't stand the idea of someone smarter than them becoming prime minister (Malcolm Turnbull).

How I crave for the kind of leadership that we saw from Paul Keating and Geoff Kennett.

Let's have leaders that will deliver true reform, that will really move Australia forward.