Privatisation, Corporatisation and the Role of Government

Local news broadcasters in Western Australia today were running stories about the issue of Gas Supply. The perthnow news site was headlined "WA gas prices three times higher than in the east". The Australian news site headlined the story "WA gas cheap by global standards". The ABC News site headlined it "Low gas price won't hurt economy: forecaster". And Gas Today Australia magazine headlined it "WA gas crisis?"

Reading the detail of each story was not really illuminating. It seems to me that one's view in the matter was entirely dependent on which vested interest you were supportive of.

What is unavoidable is the reality that for domestic consumers in WA gas, electricity and water prices have all escalated quite dramatically over the past two years, and some commentators suggest that more rises are still in the offing. The reason for these rises is that since the providers of these utilities have been privatised or corporatised they have had to charge prices that enable them to make a profit for shareholders.

This, in my view, is an extraordinary situation for us to be in because I can remember when the pressure was being applied within the political processes that led to the selling off of our Gas services and the segregation of our electricity supply, generation and network services into three separate companies, we were assured that consumers would be the beneficiaries of the competition that would be possible in a privatised market for these services. The reality of our experience seems at odds with this claim.

There seems to have been a view around over the past few decades that if the private sector thinks it can make a buck out of something the government usually does, then it should be allowed to have a go. As a result we have outsourced, corporatised, and privatised more and more services that were previous only provided by the government. This new direction was born on the myth that government-provided services were intrinsically inefficient and tax-payers should be allowed to get better value for their money.

Examples of privatisation delivering cheaper services to consumers are few and far between, but what Governments have liked about these strategies is that they are no longer responsible when things go wrong. They can bleat and carp at the new entity just like consumers but they can't be blamed. (The most extreme example I can think of in this line is the way the Government was able to duck for cover over the death of Mr Ward, the aboriginal man who died of heat stroke while being transported in an un-airconditioned van on a 40 degree day in the outback.)

I have always held the view that there are certain essential services that we, as citizens, should have delivered to our dwellings in a manner that is free from the pressures of commercial gain. Water-supply and sewerage makes sense. Roads and pathways are taken for granted. Reticulated Gas and Electricity are vital for public health and well-being. I would also argue that the network for telephone and high-speed broadband fit into this category these days because the government, not a profit-driven company, is best place to meet the universal access obligations that have applied for telephony for generations. Who we get to send services down the fibres is another matter, just as we can choose whose services we use for transportation of goods and services on our roads.

We live in a great state with an abundance of resources to provide all these services. It makes me mad when I hear politicians ducking their responsibilities in this area with false arguments about the benefits of having the private sectgor provide these services.

What do you think?

Let's all call it quits!

In some ways I understand it, but why is it so inevitable that when a leader of a political party loses an election they not only resign the leadership but they eventually resign as representative of the electorate that they just won.



Mr Brumby said emphatically after the election that he would stay on until the next election yet here he is today saying that it is better to get out of the way all together - and now at great expense and inconvenience the people of Broadmeadows have to go through a by-election to choose another representative.

No wonder people feel disillusioned and disempowered in the electoral process.

Diarmuid O'Murchu,a Catholic priest in a monastic community in the USA, said the following in his most recent publication, Adult Faith:

Governance as exercised across the contemporary world is an inherited patriarchal strategy, based on a top-down chain of command. It is inherently disempowering for the majority of humankind, and for most people it seriously undermines their development as adult selves.

He goes on to talk about democratic disempowerment and drawing attention to the fact that really just a very few people actually exercise power. Yes the people have the power to choose government and dispose of government if they are disatisfied, but the so-called "power of the ballot box" is a very thin veneer of what power is all about.

He then goes further describing the relationship between the powerful elite and the masses as one of co-dependency - the powerful elite need the masses to be passive, allowing them to exercise the power they have, and the masses need the powerful elite to be active because they realise the really don't have any power.

I am still working on many other ideas he raises in his book, but these words made me wonder about the authenticity of the ring of truth I seem to hear in them.

What do you think?

They published some of my letter - SCIENTOLOGY

I wrote to the Magazine editor of the Australian newspaper about the article they did on Scientology and which was the subject of an earlier blog-piece. Following is the letter I wrote and the bold parts are what they published.

Dear Sir

Thank you for creating a pathway for Julie-Anne Davies to submit to the basic introductory experience of Scientology. While it was illuminating, it confirmed some of my fears. In our pluralistic society we get used to people being able to believe whatever they like, but two things disturb me about Scientology (just two? you ask).

I have always been perplexed about why they have incorporated the Christian symbol of the Cross in their logo (what else can it be called?). Hubbard has never tried to suggest that Scientology was Christian. Perhaps it helped in their quest for recognition as a "Church" for tax purposes.

My second concern is far more profound. The process of Auditing as described by Julie-Anne borders on deep psychotherapy but we are given no reassurance that Scientologist Auditors have any deeper training that might give them some skills to deal with unexpected psychological trauma that might be aroused by the therapy. While a similar accusation might be laid at the feet of many Christian Ministers of Religion my experience as one demonstrates that most of the pastoral counselling they might do with members of their flocks does not deal with anything like the deep seated memories from the past that are deliberately sought for uncovering by the Scientoligist Auditor. When you go around lifting the metaphorical rocks in people's lives to see if there are any worms underneath, you have to be prepared and qualified to deal with the concequences resulting from the rrevelation of those worms.

Yours sincerely,

Not bad. They tried to balance the number of letters supportive and antogonistice to the article.

A Pox on both your Houses

The Victorian people have just gone through a gripping state election. At the time of writing the result is unknown - it could be a hung parliament such as we have in Tasmania and the Federal parliament; or it could be the Coalition by the smallest of margins.



Year 2010 will go down in our political history in the words of my daugther, a politics student at Murdoch University, as "The Year of Indecision".

What has happened to politics in our country?

Our parties seem to have become so concerned with gaining "the middle ground" that they have ditched their ideological drivers and read the electorate via the media polls. Now most voters find them indistinguishable from each other, other than by the old maxim - WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME?

The end result of this at elections seems to be that people are still about equally divided on which party they want in government, rather than seeing one or other as overwhelmingly better equipped for our current times. Or are people so disillusioned by the political process that really what they are saying to our politicians is "A pox on both your houses."

What do you think?

Scientology is no more a church than psychotherapy is a religion

The Weekend Australian Magazine had an article in it this weekend claiming to have a "first-ever" report from a journalist who was allowed to undergo the basics of an AUDIT - the special kind of therapy that is at the heart of Scientology.

It was an illuminating article - at least to get an inside view of someone who was not a devotee.

Since its inception and incorporation in the USA in 1953, Scientology has never been far from controversy, which I guess is par for the course for anything a bit out of left field. What makes Ron L. Hubbard, science-fiction author, a religious guru?

The first big controversy came in 1957 when Scientology was granted in the USA the same tax-exempt status as a church. This required the IRS being satisfied that Scientology was a bona fides religion and enable its members to claim as tax-deductions all their contributions to the church, just as Episcopalians and Catholics and Muslims can do there.

Once it was established in Australia, the Church of Scientology sought similar tax-benefits here, although regular donations to a church are not tax-deductible in Australia. Some tax-benefits were obtained on the basis of the Australian Tax Office's acceptance of their claim to be a religion engaged in benevolent activities. There were misgivings in many quarters when this happened but nothing was done.

This year, an Independent Senator, urged on by reports to him from aggrieved former members of the Church, guided through the parliament a bill seeking a review of the tax-benefits offered to any religious bodies, requiring a "public-good" test to be established before tax-benefits could be obtained. While this is to be generally applied, the impetus for it related to the view that The Church of Scientology would not be able to demonstrate any "public benefit" and so would lose their privileges.

It is in this context that I make two observations about the Church of Scientology.

Firstly, the symbol they use for their church has hijacked the Christian symbol of the Cross. Ron Hubbard has never claimed to have started a Christian sect. In fact they are completely vague about the deity - people can make up their own minds. They claim it is an eight-pointed cross representing the 8 dynamics of Dianetics. If this were really the case, I think their symbol should have been much more like a compass.



To anyone with a slightly cynical mind - like me - it could be suggested that the use of a Christian-like symbol was a strategy designed to strengthen their case and public perception that they are a religion.

My second concern relates to what is actually involved in AUDITING. The rationale is that deep-seated memories of events in our past interfere with our capacity to function at our best, and the quest of Auditing is to identify and neutralise the power of those barriers. This sounds to me like a fairly high level of psychotherapy that requires a high level of competence to administer, yet it seems one can be trained as a counsellor using a simple on-line training course. The thing that worries me about this is that very often, when someone probes around in the deep recesses of another's mind quite unexpected things may arise that need high skill-levels to work with.

As an analogy, I suggest that if you go around lifting the rocks in people's lives, don't be surprised if you discover some worms. Sometimes these "worms" have no detrimental effect on a person's life, but once they are exposed they have to be dealt with.

I know that most Christian pastors, and others in the church, engage in counselling as an intrinsic part of their work, but in my nearly thirty years of experience as a pastor we generally deal with might lighter aspects of people's lives such as inter-personal relationships they are struggling with, or their relationship with God. Most trained pastors will be given basic training in pastoral care and counselling in the context of a ministerial degree - a bit more rigorous than a short on-line course.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What do you think?

An Open Letter to my MPs about Marriage Equality

Dear Sir

I know that this week you will be considering legislation in parliament that seeks to overcome a very significant aspect of legal discrimination against gay people right across Australia and I would like you to consider supporting it.

I remember that the traditional political respose to previous requests by gay people to have their relationships recognised as marriage has been to say that "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman" therefore gay relationships can never be regarded as marriage. But marriage, as a word, can mean whatever we choose it to mean, and it seems to me that all gay people are asking for is access to the same legal privileges as married couples - next of kin status and inheritance rights, most significantly, as well as general acceptance by the community that there relationship is just as committed and meaningful as any traditional marriage.

I know, as well, that there are some within the Christian community to which I belong, who argue that the recognition of gay relationships would represent a threat to marriage and the family, and perhaps you agree with them. For the life of me, I can't see any self-evident truth to that proposition. If someone could demonstrate an actual way in which the affirmation of the relationship of a gay couple diminishes or undermines the relationship of a straight couple I would be pleased to listen to it and consider it, but I have heard none.

I really don't know why so many in society choose to create barriers for the everyday life of gay and lesbian people. I know many in both secular and religious circles and the sexuality makes no difference to their capacity to contribute positively to our community. I am sure you also know many gay and lesbian people through your public life. Please give them the same consideration as you would any other citizen in this matter of equity and access.

Yours sincerely

Does the US electoral system make sense to anyone down-under?

Mid-term elections in the US are much talked about in the US and around the world, but I must say I find it really hard to fathom what it all means. I guess what really confuses us is that because the Exective is not drawn from members of Congress a President may be up against the two houses of Congress being in the hands of his political opponents.

I was reminded yesterday, as well, that because of the nature of the US Federation, Congressional elections are controlled by the rules of state legislatures. At least in Australia all our states have allowed a common approach and rules for federal elections.

The Tea Party, as they are want to be called - but I gather that really they are simply a faction within the Republican Party - has raised up a kind of political fundamentalism that has dragged the Republicans back towards the right so as to accentuate the policy and ideological differences between them and the Democrats. From where they stand the Democrats really do seem like Communists.

Commentators have suggested that this will greatly stymie Obama's presidency. But surely this situation is not foreign to US presidents. It seems to me to be an intrsinsic part of their political system and the place still ticks over.

I think that what Americans need to understand is that their country is recovering from the deepest recession their economy has experienced in over 60 years and no matter which party is in power it is going to take some time to recover from it. The Obama administration is not repsonsible for the policy settings that led to the GFC, but they have had to make the calls about how to minimise the impact of it. I wish them well - for all our sakes.

To Tax or not to Tax? A very taxing question

The alternative Treasurer, Joe Hockey, has landed himself in some trouble recently with his proposal to add layers of regulation and scrutiny that would prevent banks from gouging their customers in the many and various ways they are now so practiced at.

Not only was his proposal at odds with the general philosophical bent of the conservative right which is to de-regulate, it seemed that when Tony Abbott was asked about it he knew nothing of the proposal.

Within days, the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, has also made a proposal that most of his colleagues were unaware of, a proposal for a position that has consistently been regarded by analysts as unworkable - a flat rate of taxation for everyone earning between $25,000 and $180,000.

Perhaps this was just another example of Tony Abbott speaking off the cuff, and so his words are not to be regarded as policy - just an idea. It was certainly a further example of the opposition straying into the area of popularity-based policy, rather than with maintaining policies that are consistent with their basic economic framework.

These two stories have generated some questions for me, and I wonder what you think of them.

1. Would you be willing to trust our economy to these two most significant members of the party of alternative government? - I don't think I would.

2. How did Howard and Costello keep those who are now in opposition under control so far as the economic message was concerned? There are a lot of free wheels out there and who knows which direction they are going in.

3. In the same week, this lot resorted to complaining about the negative impact of higher utility prices on the cost of living when inflation figures came in lower than expected. Does the Federal Government have any control over these costs? Is there not an objective in raising the cost of these utilities - to reduce our consumption?

All in all, I feel in no way inclinded to the view that the current Liberal/National coalition has the credentials to be the alternative government of this Commonwealth.

The sails are luffing

I have been wondering about the REAL outcome of the recent Federal Election.

They were heady days when the Labor party was trying to cobble together support from sufficient MPs to enable them to retain power. And now we have a Prime Minister who is still somewhat hobbled by a damaged party and insufficient MPs to govern in their own right, or even in a coalition with the Greens. This latter possiiblity for the future could restore faith in Labor among progressives - faith in them because of their willingness to form such an alliance.

I guess I have felt it for a long time - the Labor party no longer offers the Australian people progressive social policy. It is only through the influence of the Greens that these matters are even on the agenda today.

All this leaves me feeling like I am in a yacht with the sails luffing, unable to catch the wind and push us along.

How about you?

The Rule of Law - Continued

I sent emails to a about 30 conservative MPs and Senators along similar lines to that outlined below and was surprised at the responses.

Malcolm Turnbull replied quick as - "I disagree with you but thank you for taking the time to write" and Eric Abetz a bit later - "I disagree but have learned in life that different people can draw different ideas from the same things."

Ron Boswell, Kevin Andrews, Alby schultz and David Johnston all deleted the email without reading it and the reast I await a response.

The Rule of Law

I have always considered that Australia was a country under the rule of law. The principle of the separation of powers, which Queensland premier Joh Bejelke-Petersen so famously could not articulate, means that no-one can place themselves above the law or even outside the law. The law always applies - both in its obligations and protections.

It should not have been a surprise, but it was, when I heard yesterday that the Indonesian citizens who are allegedly "people-smugglers" have been held in immigration detention for nine months without charge. Such frustration leads people to do extraordinary things.


Not so long ago, an Australian citizen was taken into custody in China - Stern Hu - without being charged for quite some time. Do we remember our indignation about that? How outrageous that he should be allowed to be detained for so long without even saying what he was charged with.

Indeed, even within our own country, we are outraged if a citizen is taken into custody for a prolonged period of time without the prosecutors making it clear what they have been charged with.

Yet here are some Indonesian citizens spending months in detention who have yet to be charged. No a whisper of outrage. I find it of further interest that they are suspected of committing criminal offences but they are not being held in remand in a justice facility -rather they are held in immigration detention.

Would it be outrageous for me to suggest that the only reason for this circumstance is a deliberate strategy to deny these people access to the rule of law? Without knowing the charge they cannot advise legal counsel - if they have access to one.

There has been a systematic breakdown of the rule of law in Australia over recent years, and most of us have acquiesced to it - not so much as whimper.

Excision of Islands from Australia's Migration Zone
In 2001, the Howard government made changes to the Migration Zone as a deliberate attempt to deny asylum-seekers access to the rule of law. It was a result of political frustration that when an asylum-seeker did not like the adverse administrative decision about their claim they could appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where 90% of the cases were sent back for reconsideration (they got it wrong) and those claims that were not upheld by the AAT could be further appealed to the high court - all in all a process that could take several years.

The effect of the excision of the islands was that asylum-seekers had to make it right to the mainland if they were to have full access to the rule of law. Reaching the islands only gave them access to administrative law - which so often, when it is tested in superior courts, has been badly done.

The Pacific Solution
Again the Howard government initiated a form of processing for asylum-seekers that preneted them from getting legal advice, denied them access to Australian law, and even excluded the government from scrutiny of its actions because all they did was in another country. Another plank of the rule of law is pulled up adn thrown away.

Terrorism Laws
Under these laws people can be kept in limbo without charge for very ong periods of time, and they can even be denied the comfort of letting their family know where they are. Dr Haneef was the classic example of the abuse of this law and yet, sadly, even the current Labor government seems to support the injustice that was purpetrated under this law.

So, all in all, I suppose I should not have been surprised about those people being detained in Darwin for so long without any charges being laid against them. We need to gain a voice for HUMAN RIGHTS in this country and seek the re-establish the rule of law as a fundamental principal of Australian society - after all isn't this the land of a fair go?

The Right to Govern

What an interesting time in Australian politics as we wait for a tangible outcome of our recent General Election. It has been a bit quieter on the political conjecture stage these days as it has become clear that the independents will not be rushed into commitments to one major party or another. It has also become clear that many of the wilder suggestions of repeating the election immediately and the like are just not likely to happen.

So where are we now?

Julia Gillard is still the Prime Minister and to that extent she holds the trump card over Tony Abbott. She can afford to allow as long as it takes to get a commitment from the cross-benches not to support a no-confidence motion. We are all left wondering what inducements she might be able to offer as pursuasion to make this commitment. Wayne Swan has ruled out the option of offering ministerial responsibility to any; and I doubt any of them would relinquish their right to vote on the things they are passionate about by offering to become Speaker - despite the huge salary that goes with it.

Tony Abbott on the other hand has the unenviable task of enticing back into the fold people who have already left conservative ranks, generally burnuing bridges behind them. The evidence of these burnt bridges is no further away than the daily allegations of some member of Tony's team making a call to abuse an independent in some way or another. Declarations that they were joking or meant to say another word don't ring true because of the previous form of the utterers.

While I agree that the Labor Party has squandered its mandate to govern, when the votes of the Greens are added to theirs in both houses the combined vote is more than mandatory. Even if just 30% of the Greens voters were there because of dissaffection with the Labor Party they still have more of a mandate than the coalition has.

I look forward to seeing what is worked out, but I dearly hope that Julia Gillard is able to put it all together. Given Tony Abbott's form on so many social policy issues and the size of his ego I think he would be unsquashable in power.

Rhetoric to Hide Prejudice

Well folks, the Federal election has been demanding our attention these past 4 weeks, and despite feeling like they are avoiding the serious stuff too much I still hang in there hoping to hear them say something serious.

There seems to me to have been a lot of time spent by "should-be" probing reporters focussing on trivialities such as "Did you actually discuss this in Cabinet?" when Cabinet does not meet iin caretaker mode; or "Did you apoligise to Kevin Rudd?" Similarly, many of the politicians have been happy to be deflected from serious discussion of policy issues by trivial matters as well.

So often, it seems to me, a failure to engage in a serious policy issue is based on a willingness to argue over semantics - quibbling about words rather than dealing with the actual issue. Tony Abbot, for example, would have us believe that a comprehensive strategy to deal with our excessive use of fossil fuels and their emmissions is just a "great big new TAX on everything." Julia Gillard's contribution to the boat-people debate seems to be most concerned about avoiding any reference to one another as "rednecks" just because we espouse xenophobic views about refugees.

There are two policy areas in which I believe there is a significant resort to semantics to disguise the underlying prejudice and discrimination present one the positions.

BOAT PEOPLE
Firstly, in the area of boat people and their claims for asylum, both major parties have resorted to a focus on "People Smugglers" and "Border Protection." Every country has the right to determine how people visit or come to stay within its borders - who could argue against that proposition? And people smugglers are certainly preying on vulnerable people.

Both these issues are what I call "Motherhood Issues" - noone can really argue against them. But they are not at the heart of the issue of asylum seekers coming to our shores and seeking our protection. They represent a semantic triviality that is intended to deflect attention from the real issue - our fear of the other.

The first outcome of this fear has been an abrogation of our responsibilities as a nation towards people of our region - very often from countries in which our military intervention has been at the heart of the turmoil that has caused people to flee for their lives. We seem to think that the Convention on Refugees only applies if it suits us. The law of the sea in respect to vessels in peril only seems to apply to us if it suits us. I could go on.

The second outcome of this fear is the proposition of fundamentally unfair solutions such as the excision of our islands from the Australian migration zone, the establishment of off-shore processing of claims to deny people access to the rule of law, and perhaps even more absurdly the proposal that we set up a "regional processing centre" for refugee claimants in a third world country. If we are going to pay for it we might as well do it here in our place rather than impose such a burden on countries that already do not have the resource for their own, let alone an influx of refugees.

The reality in this policy area is that we don't want such extremely poor people knocking on our doors and asking for our protection. We don't mind Migrants who come with their money and skills. We don't even mind Refugees who come from other places so long as they agree to behave - to "join the team" as Tony Abbott is want to say.

The prophetic voice of God calls us to do justice and show mercy. I weep when our political leaders don't get that.

GAY MARRIAGE
In this most sensitive area of human relationships, again the politicians seem to be content to rabbit on about the meaning of words rather than the discrimination that results from their unwillingness to deal with it.

"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" Ipso Facto a man cannot be "married" to another man nor a woman "married" to another woman. But this is not about semantics. If it were, then it would be possible to create another form of legal relationship between same-sex couples using a different name.

Regardless of the fact that Gay couples see that in itself as discriminatory, when the ACT Government sought to do just that - to get around the semantic issue - both parties supported action to strike down the territory's legislation. So it is not a semantic issue - it is actually a matter of prejudice and discrimination.

I have yet to hear any meaningful argument demonstrating the so-called threat gay marriage poses for the traditional family. I just wish they would get away from the semantics and the oprejudice and deal with it - most Australians are so over it. Just do it.

Is it on?

I am writing in what might be the last few minutes before our Federal Election is called - if the media pundits are right. I hope they are because you may recall that last time John Howard kept us dangling through nearly 12 monthes of phoney election campaigning.

I must admit to being completely disillusioned with the two major parties.

I am old enough to remember a time when their policies were determined by a values-framework - capitalist vs socialist are the extreme versions of this framework differentiation but individualism vs collectivism would come a bit closer to what it looks like in a social-democratic context.

These days, however, driven by advisers and spin-doctors, both parties are trying to claim the middle ground - and whatever the middle ground believes will become party policy. The poll-driven approach to policy had been driving me mad for years, basically because it cares not about any of the injustice that such approaches creates.

I have been a follower of the GetUp machine for a while now and they have identified three policy areas that Australians want clear policy direction on from any aspiring government.

The first is Mental Health - could I dare to suggest that this has been a policy are of "all words and now action" for generations now? Kevin Rudd said all the right things when he came into office, but it is hard to see the evidence of any difference being made. Tony Abbott has offered his millions but what did he actually do when he was Healt Minister. They just don't get it.

The second is Climate Change - I think that this is an issue like The Republic. We all agree that it is a big issue but there are at least two major schools of thought pulling would-be policy-makiers in opposite directions. The maddening thing for me about this issue is that the Labour party was on what I thought was the right track, while the Liberals were headed elsewhere and at least that gave us a choice, but Labour has hopped on "the Train to Nowhere" on climate change in the hope that if there is no choice they will not lose voters.

As a side-light on this issue, I notice that the media paid no attention to the findings of the review into the leaking of emails from the climate research institute in England (you all remember that story) which concluded that while the institute should not have been so secretive, the fundamentals of its science was not in any way undermined by the evidence revealed in the leaks. It is really interesting since it was this event more than any other that fired up the climate-change skeptics resulting in the lack of a decision to do anything at Copenhagen. This event gave Tony Abbott the balls to challenge Malcolm Turnbull and his party now has a policy of "wait and see" or "She'll be right mate!"

The Third is Asylum Seekers - an issue which also polarizes the population into two camps of equally strong opinions. I have several rants below on this topic because it is dear to my heart, and neither of the major parties is getting anywhere near to satisfying me with their policies.

I think Chris Evans was right, if he said what he is reaported to have said, that he had failed to control the debate in this area and it was killing the party. Well, durrrrrrrr!!!!! (as I used to say in High school). The issue of asylum seekers is not about Border Control if it is only about Boat Arrivals;the issue of asylum seekers is not even about people smugglers or trafficking. These are side issues that have been brought to the fore in order to deflect attention from any awareness that our opposition to a humanitarian approach to asylum seekers that is based racism and zenophobia. We fear the over-run of our suburbs by people with different coloured faces than we have (mine's white) and we fear being over-run by people with other religions than Christian, especially Muslims, all of whom, close under the skin are "terrorists".

The so-called "bleeding heart brigade", to which I probably belong, has been out there trying to promulgate the myths about refugees that prop up the border-control and people-trafficker arguments, but it really needs the calm and sensible voice of policy that is driven by humanity and common sense, backed up by clearly observable facts.

When the Labour Party proposed a new off-shore processing option the other day I commented to a friend that if they are not careful I won't even give them my preferences.

How many other people feel disenfranchised on these issues like I do?

This is What I say to That

Dear Mr Abbott

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter to you and for asking one of your staff to respond as they have.

You make the assertion that it is very important to protect our borders. This is a motherhood statement that most people are unwilling to challenge, but it is based on a false premise. The usual context in which we refer to protecting our borders is from infiltration by an enemy or from those seeking to bring contraband into the country. As citizens of a "global village" and as a signatary of the UN Convention on Refugees we have accepted an obligation to our fellow human beings and thereby accept that when they come our way seeking protection from those who would persecute them or in other ways abuse their freedom, we will offer them the comfort they seek. We will not treat them collectively as criminals, nor will we send them back whence they came - unless our security enquiries about any individual should require us to do so.

Not only is this the kind of compassionate response someone of Christian faith should be more than willing to give, but also what our fellow citizens in the world, through the UN, expect of us. That is why I asked you to reflect on the values you espouse, not only as an Australian, but as a man of faith.

You further make the assertion that "more than 30 boats and 3,000 individuals arrived illegally in our waters." If those 3,000 individuals had not been refugees, but rather people simply seeking to secretly migrate into Australia then their arrival would indeed have been illegal, but since they first of all have asked for assylum and then for the most part subsequently have demonstrated that they are refugees, their arrival should not be referred to as illegal.

You further demean this debate by constantly referring to those who bring Assylum seekers here as "people smugglers". Assylum seekers are not some form of contraband that is being shipped into our country. They are desperate people who are willing to gather up whatever resources they can and take whatever risks seem necessary to arrive in a place where they have a prospsect of obtaining the protection they both seek and deserve.

This is cheap political rhetoric.

If your party was serious about illegal immigrants you would be pressing the Rudd Goverment, through its Immigration Department, to tighten up on the procedures that currently allow many thousands of people to overstay their visas and simply dissolve into the Australian community. These people have broken the law and most of them quite intentionally.

I remain yours sincerely

An Open Letter Gets a Response

It only took a month, but Tony Abbot (or probably one of his staff members offered me this response to my open letter.

John

Thank you for taking the time to email the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tony Abbott MP.

It is very important that we protect our boarders.

Since the election of the Rudd Government, we have seen more than 70 boats and 3,000 individuals arrive illegally in our waters. The Rudd government has softened our boarder protection policies and people smugglers are seeing Australia as a soft target.

A Coalition government would restore confidence in Australia’s boarder protection system and introduce a suite of strong measures which would discourage people smugglers from risking lives of vulnerable people.

If you would like to receive regular updates from our office, please sign up to our e-news updates by visiting http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/.

Thank you again for taking the time to pass on your thoughts on this important issue.

Tony Abbot MHR

An Open Letter to tony Abbott

Hello Mr Abbott

I was surprised to see reports that if returned to government the Liberal party would be willing to turn seaworthy boats of asylum seekers around and send them presumably somewhere else but here.

Firstly, if this were to occur in international waters, then Australian vessels would have no authority to do such a thing. Secondly, to do so after such vessels reached Australian waters would be to abrogate our obligations under international treaties concerning refugees. (I understand that the Liberal Party has a degree of disdain for such UN treaties, presumably because agreeing to something that was the idea of the UN somehow undermines our sovereignty).

There is a debate raging in some quarters at the moment about the place of religious values in the political system, and it seems to be stimulated by the obvious ways in which you and the Prime Minister profess and speak about your faith. I think the debate is a nonsense, as if all the social institutions of society must become religion-free zones so as to ensure that one's faith or non-faith is not offended.

However, one thing that I have noticed, and would draw your attention to is that most people, whether they are Christian or secular, understand the term "Good Samaritan", and they understand this term because it has become a metaphor for how to live in society - caring for others, especially if they are in a spot. Your suggestion that boatloads of asylum-seekers be turned away is an afront to deeply held Australian Values that all applicants for visas are informed are the norms in Australia and which they are required to pledge to uphold:

I confirm that I have read, or had explained to me, information provided by the Australian Government on Australian society and values.

I understand:

* Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good
* Australian society values equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background
* the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.

I undertake to respect these values of Australian society during my stay in Australia and to obey the laws of Australia.

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/values/statement/long/



You, as a professed Christian person and in fact one who has explored the Christian faith at greater depth than many when you were in seminary for a while, must see the disconnect between what you profess as a Christian person and what you want to promote as a policy position for your Party.

Please do not take the Liberal Party "Back to the Future." It was bad policy in the past and will be bad policy in the future.