We seem to be simultaneously in a time of strident secularity and one where it is unprecedently fashionable for politicians to declare their Christianity, and Christians to want to interfere in politics, as Christians. Industrial relations policy is the arena where most of the action is at the moment.
You have Kim Beazley’s declaration to the Australian Christian Lobby that “I do pray from time to time that I make right decisions.” Although he conceded “I don’t necessarily think even then that I’d blame God for the decisions that I make.”
Beazley said politicians shouldn’t try to exploit religion for their own “political ends”, but he presumably didn’t mean they shouldn’t use it to their advantage, or it would have made a nonsense of him being at the conference. And by backing a call by Catholic parents to put the government’s industrial relations in the school curriculum, he did appear to be trying for a religious advantage.
This is an issue that the churches have bought into in a big way, being more ecumenical on the workplace than they can manage in most areas of dogma. Beazley may not have been trying to exploit religion, but others, particularly in the churches, have.
Take the attempt by the president of the Uniting Church to intimidate the new Fair Pay Commissioner Professor Ian Harper an evangelical Anglican saying he “should face a crisis of conscience between his faith as an evangelical Anglican and his role determining the wages of the lowest paid.”
Which all leads up to the issue of what the Christian position ought to be on this issue, or whether there is such a thing as a Christian position. I had an email discussion about this with a friend of mine employed by the Anglican Church. My conclusion was:

I think Jesus would probably say something along the lines of, “If you do a good day’s work and put your heart and soul into it, then you don’t have to worry whether you get sacked or not, and if you don’t put your heart and soul in, well look out. Whatever happens is God’s will.” Something like that. He was pretty big on rolling with the punches. And you also get the impression that Joseph’s carpentry business had a few employees. Certainly some of those parables reveal a commercial mind. He probably would have approved of the boss’s right to make decisions about employment matters. He certainly likens God to a tough boss plenty of times.

I might not have this right, but I’m sure he would have been much more equivocal than modern day churchmen which could be one reason his church saw two thousand years of growth in the West, while theirs’ is in steady decline.

A little while ago I drew attention to the prevalence of developer donations to both sides of politics. Maybe we are about to find out much more about it.
The biggest donor to the Liberal Party is George Cheihk who passed across around $250,000, giving him almost first mortgagee status. His donations to the ALP appear to be substantial, but more modest. He is now being sued by a disgruntled silent partner in his property developments, Sydney medical registrar Dr Lloyd Tang.
Dr Tang alleges that the donations were made without proper authorisation. Will be interesting to see what comes out in the case. The Courier Mail reports that the donations were made “to curry political favour in respect of residential subdivision developments”. This of course doesn’t constitute corruption, unless there was an obligation arising or an understanding that Cheihk would be treated favourably, rather than just an expectation on Cheihk’s part.
Still, it was unwise of either party, and in particular the less wealthy Liberal Party, to allow one individual to contribute so much to their campaign funds, as it could easily give rise to a perception of corruption, and in politics perception frequently stands-in for truth.

Some people think Premier Peter Beattie has lost it. Based on some of the things he has been saying lately, they could be right. For example, he blamed Queenslanders’ unhealthy lifestyles for the hospital crisis. Apparently eating muesli and walking every morning means you’ll never be sick. Hmmm. Insult as a re-election technique – it’s innovative.
Now he’s introducing 1000 new pokies to raise $55 million in extra health revenue. He justifies it saying it is “an increase in charges on sin”.
So, he creates a whole new cadre of sinners, tempts them into giving him $55 million, and then says he is doing a good deed because, in effect, they’re doing the wrong thing, so they should be penalised. Presumably if Lucifer were troubled by ethics he could justify his activities via a similar moral tautology too. That’s fine for Satan, he doesn’t have to run for office!
Best advice on offer to Beattie is to read Dennis Atkins column from last Saturday’s Courier Mail, to which I unfortunately can’t find a link. However, what it says in essence is, “Peter, stop taling about health, try not to get in the media every day, find a bad cop to make the hits on the opposition, spread the workload around amongst your ministers, and concentrate on the Opposition’s problems (and create some for them if you can).

Sometimes I wonder why I vote Liberal, then I remember, the other guys have even less to recommend them.
Take fuel policy. Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane is supposed to have good free market credentials, so why is he pushing for tax concessions for oil exploration at a time when the oil price is providing all the subsidy a good oil explorer should need? Beats me, I’m happy to push investment funds into oil at the moment, and on the evidence, so are thousands of other punters. The government doesn’t need to bribe us to do it.
Then, just as I’m looking for someone else to vote for who might have a less kleptomanial view of my taxes Kim Beazley says this:

AUSTRALIA could face petrol prices as high as $5 a litre within a decade if it continues to rely on imported petroleum, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says.
Mr Beazley will outline a plan in Melbourne today in which a Labor government would offer incentives including tax breaks to establish a network of gas-to-liquids plants.
Mr Beazley said motorists could be paying $5 a litre by 2015 without a self-sufficient fuel industry.

Same idea, just a different interest group, and the worst economic forecasting skills I’ve ever seen in a politician. If the price of oil is $5 a litre by 2015 then the Saudis will most likely be swimming in it because no-one will be able to afford to buy it from them – we’ll have all gone over to alternative fuels, bicycles and walking, without the need for tax breaks.
What do you do in a situation like this where the political duopolists have both gone mad? Lacking a viable third party that is rational, you need to find a competing and better project to spend the money on.
The only reason politicians are offering to spray it around is because they’ve got plenty of it, so we need to find attractive ways to take it away from them. I’m not convinced of the social equity of Malcolm Turnbull’s flat tax, but I am convinced there’s no social equity in some of the alternate plans for the money, so I guess I’m going to join the tax revolt so that I can look after my own product subsidies.

Appointing Winston Peters as Foreign Minister would be the equivalent of a Kim Beazley making Pauline Hanson, Foreign Affairs Minister, in order to run a tenuous minority government. The only difference is that Peters is Maori while Hanson isn’t Aboriginal.
Couldn’t have happened here, could it? Well, it could in Tasmania, which is the only state with proportional representation. And who knows what will happen with the remnants of One Nation after the next Queensland election – anyone could be doing deals with them. Could Anna Bligh be as ruthless as Helen Clark? Probably.
At least I can agree with Peters on one point – many of the Asian leaders with which he will be dealing will be racist too. I’ve never understood the way that Australian leaders can be so stung by criticism about human rights and racism from leaders who care little for either.
In fact, accusations of racism by international leaders are most frequently the refuge of the scoundrel. Take a look at the latest from Robert Mugabe. Actually, he doesn’t mention race here, just trots out the school boy debating bogey-man of Adolph Hitler and applies it to Blair and Bush. But charges of racism are never far from his lips.
Per capita, on the International stage, with company like this, Peters should be able to hold his own.

Watching the dignitaries arrive at the 80th birthday celebrations for Baroness Thatcher in London last week it struck me that such an array of guests simply could not be assembled for a retired and respected political leader in Australia.
Among the guests was John Major, who deposed Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister. Various members of her cabinet who contributed to her demise were there as well, though Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine did not make it.
But, as Sky News perhaps uncharitably put it, three “jailbirds” did make the guest list – Mark Thatcher, Lord Archer, and Jonathan Aitken.
But the surprise guests were the Right Honourable Anthony Charles Linton Blair and Mrs Cherie Blair.
Yes, a Labour Prime Minister at a function dominated by Tories.
Can you imagine John Howard attending Bob Hawke’s birthday party, or Bob Hawke attending Paul Keating’s?
The lack of civility in Australian politics today has no historic basis.
If you don’t believe that, access the House of Representatives Hansard and read the tribute Robert Gordon Menzies paid to Joseph Benedict Chifley on the latter’s death soon after Menzies replaced him as Prime Minister in 1949.
Or, better still, Menzies’ tribute to Eddie Ward, perhaps his most trenchant Parliamentary critic, when Ward died in the early 1960’s.
Former Australian Prime Minister’s are accorded generous retirement benefits, but little else.
It was not until Robert Edward Borbidge became Premier of Queensland in 1996 that former Premiers were given proper recognition, and I am proud of my role in lobbying Borbidge, a decent person, to accord proper rights and status to his predecessor, Wayne Keith Goss…….a car and driver, an office and a secretary.
The meanness in Australian politics was really evidenced in Queensland when Johannes Bjelke-Petersen effectively ended the practice of parliamentary tributes to deceased former Members – because too many former Labour, and even Liberal, Members were falling of their perch.
And he took away the right accorded to former Ministers to be given a state Funeral for the same reason. How mean can one get?
We could do well to follow the example of our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, when it comes to respecting political rivals.
Recently, the Prime Minister, Sir Michael Thomas Somare, introduced Papua New Guinea’s own honours system, to operate side by side with the imperial honours PNG has retained since Independence in 1975.
The highest initial awards under the Order of Logohu went to a number of distinguished citizens, including the Right Honourable Sir Julius Chan, and the Right Honourable Paias Wingti.
And what is exceptional about that?
In 1980, and 1985, Chan and then Wingti deposed Michael Somare as Prime Minister after quitting his Government.
The lack of civility, and the pervading meanness of spirit, in Australian politics is contributing to the standing of the political process, and those who practice it, having to endure low public standing and confidence.
They are not the only reasons…are substantial contributors to the continuing decline in public confidence in our democracy.
And the sad thing is there is little evidence our Leaders are collectively at all concerned about it, let alone prepared to do anything about it.

One of the joys of early morning radio is that there are few advertisements, so you can imagine my consternation when I tuned into 4KQ at 4.30 this morning and was greeted with yet another taxpayer funded ‘Work Choices’ advertisement.
Part of my work requires me to listen to radio talk shows, and watch television current affairs programs, so the occasional 60s and 70s music on KQ is a pleasant change. But another bloody ‘Work Choices’ ad at 4.30 am……..give me a break!
If I have heard or seen the advertising campaign promotion the Federal Government’s IR changes once, I have done so well over a hundred times.
The radio and television stations are hardly complaining – who else but the taxpayer would pay for a spot on radio at 4.30 am?
The Federal Government runs the real risk of incurring a massive voter (taxpayer) backlash as a result of absolute saturation placement of radio, television and print advertising promoting an issue the electorate is deeply suspicious of.
I have been following community trends and attitudes for longer than I care to remember, and I cannot recall a period in which the electorate has been more deeply suspicious and cynical of politicians, and governments, than it is today. All politicians, all governments – state, federal and local.
And that cynicism is enhanced when propaganda is mercilessly shoved down the electorate’s throat at the electorate’s expense!
The ‘Work Choices’ advertising campaign is truly painful. It is annoying, and I have not the slightest doubt that if it continues it will be massively counter-productive.
I broadly monitor caller attitudes on open line radio programs. Last week, the Tin Can Bay dolphin feeding issue attracted the most pronounced, and angry, reaction I have ever come across. That is why Peter Beattie intervened so decisively.
But the feedback on the IR changes is not far behind. The calls have been overwhelmingly negative, and a significant number now express irritation at the saturation advertising campaign they are paying for.
When I last checked a Channel Ten phone in poll last night it was running around 90-10 against the changes.
If the polls are right, and a significant majority of the electorate are either opposed to, or suspicious of, these reforms, then the longer the advertising campaign goes then the more damage it will do.
And it will do damage because much of the advertising is meaningless. It tells you very little – other than to ring a free call number to get a booklet….and I gather the process is not an easy one.
But most of the damage is being done because the electorate does not trust politicians or governments, and, as a consequence, it is suspicious of significant change when the need for it has not been established. Saturation advertising exacerbates the position, it does not improve it.
Other campaigns by federal and state governments, of both political persuasions, have backfired. I suspect this one will backfire very badly indeed.