New posts will no longer be received on this feed, so if you're keen to keep up-to-date please make the very easy switch.

Thanks and happy reading!

In November 2011, the NSW Government commenced a review into the ethics classes, aiming to report on the current operation of ethics classes in light of their objectives, curriculum, implementation and effectiveness.

This is the first of two briefings on the ethics and scripture debate. Our purpose here is to update readers on the current state of play. We are not addressing the issues that have divided many NSW people into bitter ‘ethics’ or ‘scripture’ camps. We simply want you to know how things stand, at the level of State governance. We will attempt to understand and distil some of the arguments for and against ethics classes in the second briefing.

We usually appreciate feedback, but we won’t respond to strong opinions offered for or against SEE classes. We would be glad to hear of any errors of fact in what follows.

In December 2010, the Education Amendment (Ethics) Act 2010 passed into law, instigated by the then-NSW Labor Government. This Act amended the Education Act 1990. The amendment allows an alternative course of Special Education in Ethics (SEE) to be provided to students whose parents have opted out of their child receiving Special Religious Education (SRE).

What did the Education Act say about SRE before the amendment?

The original position on SRE in the Education Act can be found in section 32 and 33. Section 32 provides for the religious education of children of any religious persuasion in every government school. The total number of hours of religious education for each child may not exceed the number of school weeks in the year. The Act stipulates these further requirements:

-          The SRE must be given by a member of the clergy, or by a teacher authorised by the relevant religious body,

-          The times at which SRE is given must be made by an agreement between the school principal and the local authorised teacher of SRE, and

-          Children attending SRE are to be separated from other children at the school whilst SRE is taught.

Education Act Section 33 adds a parental right of objection. No child at a government school is required to receive any general or special religious education if the child’s parent objects. (General religious education is included in the secular instruction that children are to receive in government schools. It is distinct from ‘dogmatic or polemical theology’.)

What was the effect of the amendment?

The 2010 Amendment inserts Section 33A into the Education Act. It allows for SEE as a secular alternative to SRE at government schools. A child attends SEE classes by means of this process:

-          The child’s parent objects to the child receiving special religious education (as per Section 33, above).

-          The child is entitled to receive SEE only if:

• it is reasonably practical for SEE classes to be made available to the child at the school, and
• the parent has specifically requested the child to receive SEE.

(See below for the exact wording of sections 32–33A.)

In other words, for a child to receive SEE, a parent must (a) withdraw the child from SRE, then (b) enrol him or her into SEE. (Potentially then, some students may do neither.) The practical result of s. 33A is that for children to swap from SRE to SEE, parents must first formally seek exemption from SRE in writing. A place in any available ethics classes will only be offered once the written application has been confirmed. A minimum of 8 and a maximum of 22 students are allowed for each SEE class.

What are SEE classes and how are they offered?

The Department of Education has provided some guidelines for principals around the introduction of ethics classes. These state that Principals should assist SEE coordinators and teachers to become familiar with the school, and provide the coordinators with lists of students attending ethics classes. All parents of children in Years 5 and 6 are to be informed when ethics classes are available. The composition of classes is to be determined by the Principal, and those students who had opted out of SRE during 2010 and prior are to be given priority access to an SEE class.

Primary Ethics was founded by the St James Ethics Centre in November 2010, and is responsible for all aspects of the SEE delivery. Primary Ethics seeks to provide age-appropriate education in philosophical ethics. It provided a curriculum for students in years 5-6 during 2011. Their website states that a curriculum framework spanning kindergarten to Year 6 (K-6) has been developed, and classes for K-4 will be rolled out progressively to lower grades over the years ahead.

What numbers are involved?

The number of students in NSW who attend scripture, who ‘opt out’ and who attend ethics classes, is not officially recorded. The figure of 25% (approximately 100,000 NSW children) who ‘opt out’ has been frequently quoted during 2010 and 2011, but is usually cited as ‘anecdotal evidence’.

In the 9 months to September 2011, Primary Ethics reports having recruited 400 volunteers with 210 teachers delivering ethics classes to approximately 3100 students in 150 schools. By 22 November 2011, 3500 students in NSW were attending ethics classes organised by Primary Ethics. The organisation plans to build a network of over 4000 local community-based volunteers who will coordinate ethics classes at individual schools. It also seeks to recruit, select and support suitable teachers to deliver weekly SEE.

What is the Inquiry into ethics classes?

At the end of 2011—the close of the first full year of ethics classes—The Hon. Rev. Fred Nile MLC (of the Christian Democrats) requested an inquiry into the operation ethics classes. A Parliamentary Inquiry has been set up to consider whether the amendment act should be repealed.

Its terms of reference request the Committee to inquire into and report on the stated objectives, curriculum, implementation, effectiveness and other matters pertaining to the current operation of SEE. It is also to consider whether the Education Amendment (Ethics) Act 2010 should be repealed by means of the Education Amendment (Ethics Classes Repeal) Bill 2011 (although Liberal Premier Barry O’Farrell has stated that his government has no intention to repeal the amendment).

It is expected that this Inquiry will provide official numbers of children attending both scripture and ethics classes, as well as children who are under supervision because they do neither. The committee will accept submissions until 24 February 2012, and must report to the Parliament by 4 June 2012.

What else has happened?

At the same time as announcing the enquiry, the NSW Minister for Education announced that the guidelines for delivering SRE need to be strengthened.

At present, only a maximum period (of 1 hour per week) is specified by the legislation. That means that both scripture and ethics classes can be forced to run in ever-shrinking time slots. The minister announced that the plans to strengthen SRE  ‘…will include a minimum time of 30 minutes of meaningful teaching time per week in primary schools’. (The exact operational details of any new arrangements may take a different form.)

-          Rebecca Belzer and Andrew Cameron
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

From the EDUCATION ACT 1990:

32 Special religious education

(1) In every government school, time is to be allowed for the religious education of children of any religious persuasion, but the total number of hours so allowed in a year is not to exceed, for each child, the number of school weeks in the year.

(2) The religious education to be given to children of any religious persuasion is to be given by a member of the clergy or other religious teacher of that persuasion authorised by the religious body to which the member of the clergy or other religious teacher belongs.

(3) The religious education to be given is in every case to be the religious education authorised by the religious body to which the member of the clergy or other religious teacher belongs.

(4) The times at which religious education is to be given to children of a particular religious persuasion are to be fixed by agreement between the principal of the school and the local member of the clergy or other religious teacher of that persuasion.

(5) Children attending a religious education class are to be separated from other children at the school while the class is held.

(6) If the relevant member of the clergy or other religious teacher fails to attend the school at the appointed time, the children are to be appropriately cared for at the school during the period set aside for religious education.

33 Objection to religious education

No child at a government school is to be required to receive any general religious education or special religious education if the parent of the child objects to the child’s receiving that education.

33A Special education in ethics as secular alternative to special religious education

(1) Special education in ethics is allowed as a secular alternative to special religious education at government schools.

(2) If the parent of a child objects to the child receiving special religious education, the child is entitled to receive special education in ethics, but only if:

(a) it is reasonably practicable for special education in ethics to be made available to the child at the government school, and

(b) the parent requests that the child receive special education in ethics.

(3) A government school cannot be directed (by the Minister or otherwise) not to make special education in ethics available at the school.

Sources/Further Reading:

Guidelines for principals around SEE by the Department of Education, http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/policies/ethics/index.htm

St James Ethics Centre, http://www.ethics.org.au/

Primary Ethics, www.primaryethics.com.au.

Education Amendment (Ethics Classes Repeal) Bill 2011 (Inquiry), http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/3312B8C2F2E89AD2CA2579480000E930

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at:

http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

Social Issues briefing #097, 24/06/2011.

The recent reality-TV series Go Back To Where You Came From was the highest-rating SBS show for the year. It takes six Australians back up the line to the stops on a refugee’s journey, all the way back to where they came from.

Robert Martin is a graduate of Moore College and now the Melbourne Director of the City Bible Forum. In this special ‘guest authored’ briefing, he reflects on some time he spent with his family on Christmas Island.

Robert’s time among the detainees was another unique experience of ‘going back’, at least a little way, into the world of the refugee. It’s a personal view that will help you to picture some of what happens.

It’s a bit longer than usual, because I’ve included his interesting travelogue to help you picture the place. But if you want to cut to the chase, skip the section on ‘the island’. Go to ‘the refugees’, or ‘detention’, where Robert makes some interesting comments about the quality of immigration detention.

It should be read in the context of our other briefings on the issue: see links to the right.

- Andrew Cameron

___________________________________________________________________________

‘Christmas Island.’ ‘Stop the Boats.’ ‘Illegal immigration.’ ‘Queue jumper.’  ‘Border protection.’ It fascinates me how asylum seekers stimulate such strong emotions.

I had the privilege of spending two months on Christmas Island in 2009–10. I was there with my family as a visiting pastor to the Christmas Island Christian Fellowship. But I also went into the Christmas Island detention centre and met some ‘boat people’ from Sri Lanka first hand. Christmas Island changed me – I learnt a lot, and came home with some very different opinions.

The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as ‘any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality ... is unable ... or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country’. A number of the people we met on Christmas Island certainly satisfied this definition. They had fled Sri Lanka for their lives.

One guy I met shared that he’d been shot when his workplace was targeted by the majority group. The bullet miraculously avoided his kidney, and he survived. His friend died in the shooting. It was hard to know what to say to someone who’d claimed to be shot. But when he lifted his shirt and showed me the gunshot wound, it made the persecution he’d experienced very real.

The same guy also told me of how he had been tortured with knives and electric wires on his arms. Again, he lifted his shirt sleeve and I saw the scars.

Another man recounted how he’d been beaten and his boss kidnapped. He feared for his life. These people firmly believe that if they went back to Sri Lanka, they’d be killed.

As I sat listening to these horrendous stories I asked, ‘but why do they want to kill you?’ The answer was simple: ‘because we’re Tamil. In Sri Lanka, there are no human rights.’

These stories made the asylum seeker debate far less academic for me. These people had suffered, and I’d seen their scars. They had a well-founded fear persecution for reasons of race. It turns out that the Australian Government agrees. Most asylum seekers on Christmas Island end up classified as refugees.

I now find it astonishing when people living thousands of kilometres away, without any first-hand knowledge of such turmoil, make sweeping claims like ‘these people aren’t really refugees’. If some aren’t, the ones I met sure were.

Politicians, the media and the general public also seem confused by the distinction between ‘illegal immigration’ and ‘refugee movement’. Even if people enter Australia unconventionally and unlawfully, if they are found to be refugees then they are not ‘illegal immigrants’. As the UNHCR puts it:

Refugees may not be able to obtain the necessary documents when trying to escape and may have no choice but to resort to illegal means of escape. Therefore although the only means of escape for some may be illegal entry and/or the use of false documentation, if the person has a well-founded fear of persecution they should be viewed as a refugee and not labelled an ‘illegal immigrant’.

Many on Christmas Island have entered Australia without proper documentation, but they aren’t automatically illegal immigrants. I asked the Sri Lankan guys I met ‘why didn’t just buy a plane ticket and come to Australia like everyone else?’ They just laughed and said they couldn’t get the proper documentation. These guys were stuck. They couldn’t enter Australia legally under any circumstance. There was just no ‘queue’ to ‘jump’.

The notion of a ‘queue’ is ambiguous. There is no orderly line for refugees. Many asylum seekers come from countries where there is no UNHCR office and no Australian embassy, for example Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if they do find their way to a refugee camp in Indonesia, they find several thousand others waiting before them. Yet the average number of refugees repatriated from Indonesia to Australia each year for the last few years has been around 50. If that’s a ‘queue’, then it’s a very long and slow moving one. It often takes refugees six, seven, ten or twelve years to be repatriated.

Conditions in such refugee camps are often appalling. The camps are overcrowded with terrible sanitation and unsafe drinking water. The water has been described as contaminated with faeces and fungus. This long, slow wait in third world squalor is what creates the market for people smugglers.

‘Queue jumping’ and ‘people smuggling’ are a ‘retrieval ethic’ for these people. They do whatever they can to retrieve something good in a messy situation. If we were in a burning stadium with our family, and the door let out one person in a hundred, we would do whatever we could to get our family out over the wall. That is effectively what the people I met on Christmas Island did.

The island. Christmas Island itself is a unique place. It has an amazing, precious and fragile natural environment, and a fascinating local culture. It is part of Australia’s Indian Ocean territories and located in the middle of nowhere, 1,400km off the north western coast of Australia and 2,600km north-west of Perth. The closest land mass to Christmas Island is Indonesia, some 300km north.

Captain William Mynors of the Royal Navy named the island in 1643 when they passed by on Christmas Day. The first recorded landing was in 1688 when a crew from the British buccaneer vessel, Cygnet, captained by William Dampier landed searching for water and timber. The first extensive exploration was conducted in 1887 when a group of explorers found rock specimens of virtually pure phosphate. This discovery led to the creation of an extensive phosphate mining industry on the island. Indeed, phosphate mining remains the largest industry on the island today.

But the island is not small. It has around 80km of coastline and covers 135 square kilometres. The highest point is Murray Hill, 361m above sea level. Cars are almost essential. The coastline is dominated by sheer cliffs; there are few good beaches. The best one, Dolly Beach, requires a 4WD to get to the carpark and then a 45 minute walk to the beach.

The permanent population on the island is around 1,500 people. There is no indigenous population and the current population comprises Chinese, European and Malay people. This brings an interesting mix of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. There are several Buddhist temples dotted over the island, including one at the end of the street we were living in. There’s also a mosque where we heard the call to prayer at various times during the day. On Christmas Island we often felt we were living in Asia.

We loved the relaxed and friendly lifestyle on the Island. There is virtually no crime. We had one of the local police officers around for dinner, and he told us that the main criminal activity on the island was traffic offences. (People still speed, even when your longest trip anywhere is 20 minutes!)

Christmas Island’s ecosystem is unique. It has so many unique species of flora and fauna that some have described it as the ‘Galapagos of the Indian Ocean’. I often felt I was living in Jurassic Park. The island has high, rocky rainforest covered cliffs with frigate birds, which resemble Pterodactyls, soaring around.

The most famous of Christmas Island fauna is the red crabs. There are an estimated 60 million of these eight legged creatures on the island and the annual red crab migration is one of the wonders of the natural world. Famed documentary maker Sir David Attenborough described the crab migration as one of his ten greatest wildlife experiences.

Our arrival coincided with the end of the red crab migration. We saw thousands of crabs scuttling around near the beach carrying their eggs. They were waiting for dawn where they would spawn, where they’d do a little dance and drop their eggs into the ocean. However with two small children we didn’t have the energy to get up at 4am to get to the beach to witness the spawning. Nevertheless we did see the thousands upon thousands of crabs returning to their homes in the rainforest. This meant the closure of many roads on the island. It was a truly remarkable sight.

Our children loved the crabs, particularly our one year old, Aoife. She would chase them and squeal with delight whenever they came near. Unfortunately I have to confess myself a red crab killer. The crabs are everywhere, even on the roads. As a driver I tried my best, but sometimes they are impossible to miss. My wife Di described the sound of running over a red crab as being similar to popping a chip packet.

One personal highlight of my time on Christmas Island was crawling out of bed at 5am one morning to go fishing. Before Christmas Island, the largest fish I’d ever caught was a tiny leatherjacket in Sydney Harbour. All that changed on Christmas Island, when I caught a 9.2kg Wahoo. I’d always thought fishing was a waste of a good sit. But I’ve never used so many muscles of my body at once, trying to reel in this fish.

The Christians. The Christmas Island Christian Fellowship is a small Christian community who meet in a local community hall. My role was as visiting pastor at the invitation of this independent, nondenominational Christian fellowship. It was an unpaid job, but they paid our airfares and some living allowance. (Airfares from Sydney cost about the same as a return trip to Europe.)

We loved the Christian fellowship. It was a group of around thirty adults of varying backgrounds – Australians, Chinese Malaysians and even some from mainland China. Some had been Christians for a long time, and others only a very short time. It was remarkable that in this remote place with no paid pastor, people were still coming to know Jesus. It was also quite a challenge to preach via a Mandarin translator.

Some asked if we could stay longer. I already had a job lined up, so we couldn’t accept. But we were touched, and would seriously have considered it.

The refugees. I initially wondered how I would make inroads into the main detention centre, but God kindly made access a lot easier. We became friends with a guard at the centre, who liked many of the asylum seekers. He introduced us to two enthusiastic Sri Lankan Christians, Ravi and Sam. Ravi had been a pastor in Sri Lanka. He gathered a number of Christians in the centre for prayer and worship every morning.

Every Sunday Ravi, Sam and about ten other refugees also joined us for church in the community hall. For some, their understanding of English was quite limited, but they all enjoyed the excursion. In fact the detention centre activities officer said it was amazing how many asylum seekers found God when there was an opportunity for an excursion! Anyway, these guys were a real sight when they arrived in their little minibus. They poured out and greeted us with real respect and enthusiasm. This was our first real encounter with refugees on Christmas Island. Di noticed that they all wore what she assumed were government issued Dunlop volleys. These guys were very committed to Jesus, and enjoyed singing their Tamil songs loudly, even though none of them could keep a tune.

We held a Christmas morning service inside the immigration detention centre. About forty were present. Again, my sermon was translated, this time into Tamil. It was a real privilege and opportunity to preach the truth of Christmas and the truth of Jesus in this environment. The service, like most things on Christmas Island, was a little strange. The piece of paper with the printed Bible readings had a Santa face as the background. There were lots of Santa faces all around the room. It was a Christmas Island Christmas Day I would never forget.

I ran twice-weekly Bible studies with the Sri Lankans in their ‘prayer room’, a small air-conditioned room in the activities wing of the detention centre. We read through the first nine chapters of Mark, and I was struck by how enthusiastic and hungry these guys were for reading the Bible. In all my years of leading small groups I have never encountered a group as dedicated and who applied themselves to the scriptures as much as this group. I saw them learning more and more about Jesus Christ. After a while the once-intimidating security protocols for entering the detention centre became routine. One security guard referred to me as ‘the padre’.

It was Ravi who told me about being shot and tortured.  He went on to share about his harrowing trip across the ocean from Malaysia to Australia. He paid an agent, better known to us as a people smuggler, $US9,000 to get onto a boat. The first boat he was on caught fire. After surviving being shot, Ravi said Jesus saved his life again as his trouser leg caught fire. Ravi was saved but the boat was disabled. They were stranded in the middle of the ocean for ten days, with no land in sight. Ravi said rats the size of your forearm crawled over him as he tried to sleep. They were even circled by pirates, who threatened to come back the next day and finish them off. Fortunately a new ship arrived and they were able to proceed to Christmas Island.

Ravi was safe and happy on Christmas Island. His refugee claim had been accepted and I eventually heard that he obtained his visa, and is now safely resettled in Perth.

Sam was younger than Ravi but had been on Christmas Island longer. He actually received his visa when we were there. (Sam went on to appear on an episode Jennie Brockie’s SBS TV’s Insight, ‘Stopping the Boats’.) He told me how he was beaten and imprisoned for three years. When was working in a shop, the shop owner was kidnapped and Sam feared for his life. At one point he spent a month in one room, because he was too scared to go outside. Sam fled to Malaysia, where he paid an agent to take him on a boat to Australia.

Others told me about their family members, kidnapped and held to ransom for $US250,000. They could have stayed in Sri Lanka by paying bribes to those in power, but that was hardly a sustainable way of life, so they fled.

Detention. So, how does detention on Christmas Island compare to the Indonesian camps people could have been in?

I’m one of the few people to have been inside the Christmas Island detention centre and who is not a government employee. I’m therefore free to make public comment. As I reflect on my time on Christmas Island, I find myself frustrated at all the misinformation and confusion in the debate over refugees. I’ve summarised some of those confusions above.

But it should also be noted that I no longer agree when refugee advocates claim the detention centre on the Island is inhumane. The detainees in Christmas Island are not mistreated. They have access to a wide range of services. They are safe, and are well looked after.

The immigration detention centre is actually an excellent facility. It’s a cross between a prison and a weekend away venue. There are high fences, a centralised security system, cameras and double-barrel locks. Everywhere is steel and concrete. Yet the venue is well equipped for the comfort and leisure of the detainees. There are tennis courts, a gym, Internet facilities, a kiosk, televisions and a library. The rooms are well equipped, and they have access to TVs, fridges and microwaves.

The big issues for those detained are boredom and uncertainty. Boredom, because there is only so much time you can spend in the gym and playing cricket. (Imagine staying at a weekend away for six months!) Their anxiety is due to uncertainty over whether they will be given a visa or not. It’s the single biggest issue those in detention worry about.

Furthermore, the concept of detention is ambiguous. When we imagine detention, we imagine the main Christmas Island detention facility: high barbed wire electric fences, guards, and sniffer dogs.

Yet no women or children are housed in the main detention facility. They are housed in different centres, on the other side of the island. These places have no bars or fences. Children can play in the local playground, go swimming at the local pool and attend school where their needs are met.

We also met a Sri Lankan family in ‘community detention’, which I hadn’t heard of before. Here a family lives and moves around the island freely. Their children played with our children, and their mother volunteered in the op-shop. This form of ‘detention’ seemed very humane and reasonable, and makes a blanket condemnation of ‘detention’ misleading.

We went to Christmas Island fully expecting to find the refugees mistreated and fully expecting to discover detention centres as evil places, yet we found this not to be the case. To be sure, there are difficulties with detention and life on Christmas Island. But simply to say that detention is wrong, is simplistic.

Of course the refugees themselves are not perfect either. The guard we mentioned finds some of them quite demanding. They will break things just to get a new one. It’s frustrating for the guards, and demonstrates that needy, desperate people aren’t necessarily good people. That said, I remember the constant boredom and anxiety that they experience. It wouldn’t bring out the best in any of us.

They also have mixed motives in coming to Australia, seen in ‘secondary movement’. A refugee may flee their country to seek the protection of one immediately bordering them. Yet some of these refugees see this flight as an opportunity to seek a more beneficial ‘economic migration’ to another country that affords greater protection and opportunity. Why seek asylum in another developing country when you could come to Australia? This ‘opportunism’ irritates many Australians – but of course we should be flattered by it. Who wouldn’t want to come to Australia?

Responding as a Christian. I know that Christians don’t all agree on this issue. But it looks a lot different up close. It now seems obvious to me, as a follower of Jesus, how I should respond. And although it may sound clichéd, if I am to be shaped by Jesus then I think the best place to look is the obvious place: his parable of the Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37).

Jesus tells this parable after explaining that the essence of the law revolves around loving God and loving our neighbour. So someone plays the lawyer game, asking ‘who is my neighbour?’ Jesus then talks about upstanding religious people leaving a vulnerable man on the road to die.

We’re not told their motivation for not helping. I’m sure they had very reasonable justifications. The Samaritan, in contrast, provides compassionate hospitality and care to someone he wouldn’t have otherwise spoken to (for Jews and Samaritans had a strained relationship at best).

Jesus is saying that love to a neighbour takes the form of costly hospitality, generosity and compassion, to people you wouldn’t otherwise speak to. The Samaritan gave up time and money to set the conditions under which the other man could live.

If this story is to mean anything, I reckon Jesus would have a view about our responding to vulnerable refugees who are fleeing danger and persecution. I reckon Jesus’ stance is diametrically opposed to the common selfish objections of modern Australia, a country which is rich and wealthy, but not particularly welcoming, compassionate or generous. The excuses our nation provides might sound like the excuses used to abandon the man in need. Yet Jesus was quite straightforward about how to respond, and why.

‘Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?’ asked Jesus. The expert in the law replied, ‘The one who had mercy on him’. Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise’.

Robert Martin,
Melbourne Director of the City Bible Forum
www.citybibleforum.org/melbourne

Postscript from Andrew: Obviously, there remain several important policy discussions about how best to handle refugees. But Robert reminds me that the end of those discussions hinges on the beginning: whether or not we care very much about the people at the centre of it.

Sources/Further Reading:

UNHCR figures on Australia’s low 2010 response to refugees and asylum seekers:
Refugee Council of Australia, ‘UN refugee figures show asylum fears unfounded,’ media release 20 June 2011. Online:
http://refugeecouncil.org.au/news/releases/110620_Global_Trends.pdf

UNHCR frequently asked questions (includes basic distinctions between ‘economic migrants’, ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’). Online:
http://www.unhcr.org.my/Resources-@-Frequently_Asked_Questions(FAQs).aspx

Andrew Cameron, ‘it’s official: Australia is unfair,’ ABC The Drum 9 June 2011. Online:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2751386.html.
(A response to proposed changes to the Migration Act.)

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at:

http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

‘Alcohol takes souls.’
(Hosea 4:11, paraphrased)

A surprising coalition. What do the Police Association,^[1] the NSW Council of Churches,^[2] Anglicare Sydney,^[3] the NSW Nurses Association,^[4] surgeons^[5] and doctors^[6] all have in common?

In an effort to reduce alcohol related violence, these groups have asked the NSW Government to trial earlier closing times for licensed premises in NSW.

Binge-fuelled street violence is on the rise around Australia.^[7] But the O’Farrell Liberal Government and the Australian Hotels Association oppose a widespread trial of earlier closing times for licensed premises.

Yet recent trials of 3am closing times for licensed premises in the Newcastle CBD produced significant reductions in the frequency and intensity of alcohol related violence. The top Sydney venues for alcohol related violence are already required to abide by tougher licensing provisions, so the Government’s resistance to a broader trial of 3am closing is hard to understand.

This briefing is to inform you of the serious concerns about alcohol related violence that are emerging across our  community. It also argues why earlier closing times for licensed premises offers a way forward, helping to make our communities safer and healthier.

What’s it to Christians? In the past, Christians typically sought social and policy reforms to alcohol abuse. Earlier generations came up with initiatives to help individuals, such as Alcoholics Anonymous and the ‘temperance’ movement. But they were also political activists. They argued for tough liquor licensing provisions, and opposed policies for extended trading hours. The pejorative term ‘wowser’ was often used to attack their social interventions, and they generally lost the battle.

Today, evangelical Christians have largely vacated this political space. But this political quietism is not only a response to our grandparents being called ‘wowsers’. It has been more generally justified by appeals to ‘two kingdom’ theology: that churches should look after church business, and that ‘rulers’ should look after State business. (‘Two kingdoms’ theology is a contestable reading of Matt. 22:16–21 and Rom. 13:1–7.) It has been justified by appeals to evangelism, as if this core activity is the only worthy form of social engagement by Christians. It is justified by the view that people who don’t have the Spirit of God can be expected to display ‘drunkenness’, a fruit of the flesh (Gal. 5:19–21), and no law will stop that.

But a coalition of citizens who demand our respect and support now occupies the political space that Christians vacated. With an element of real desperation, police, nurses, doctors and criminologists have joined forces. Now, they are called ‘wowsers’.[8] They see and suffer from street behaviour that few Christians go near. There is a significant opportunity for Christians to re-engage the community by affirming and supporting those who provide valuable public services, while also seeking the welfare of people damaged by alcohol related violence.

The quotation from Hosea (above) reflects the hard-hitting Hebrew original. Alcohol abuse reduces us. It takes away our inner self. It robs us of our heart, our soul. It corrodes us at our core. It ruins our personhood. Christian social engagement will continue to show those who party hard, and who have developed an addiction to alcohol, that twenty or thirty drinks per night cannot replace reconciled relationships of love with God and with others.

But there is also a place to restrain the extreme damage that extreme drinkers do to police, paramedics, themselves and one another. Police, doctors and nurses need our support.

And our political leaders need some serious confrontation.

Main advocacy reforms. According to their Last Drinks campaign, what police and others want is simple:

Police Officers, Doctors, Nurses and Ambulance Officers are sick of dealing with the effects of alcohol-related violence. … The hotel industry's mantra of personal responsibility is not working. Experience has shown, however, that stronger restrictions on late night trading at pubs and clubs does make a difference.[9]

Doctors, nurses, ambulance officers and police are, quite simply, sick and fearful of dealing with the effects of intoxicated patrons of licensed premises late at night and in the early hours of the morning.  They are abused, intimidated, threatened, assaulted and injured in the course of their duties.  They attend to the seriously injured, are forced to struggle to restrain both male and female intoxicated violent offenders who are no longer in control of themselves …  Our members are also forced to have to remove vomit, urine and excrement from intoxicated persons and off themselves, their clothing, equipment, vehicles and holding areas.[10]

The Last Drinks coalition asks for five simple measures:

• after 10pm, prohibit the sale of shots and other high-alcohol drinks;
• 1am lockout for all NSW hotels (a lockout escorts intoxicated people off the premises and does not allow them to re-enter);
• extend 3am closing across NSW;
• licensed venues adopt other management policies; and
• the impact of these measures on violent crime be carefully studied after a twelve month trial.

The need for change: Sydney CBD. In December 2008 a number of licensing restrictions were placed on the top 50 licensed premises for assaults in the Sydney Central Business District (CBD). These changes were in response to an upward trend in assaults between midnight and 5am. The restrictions included 2am lockouts and several other ‘brakes’ on alcohol service.

There was a marked decline in the incidence of alcohol related violence after these changes. The data is ambiguous as to what caused the decline,^[11] but the results are consistent with other studies showing that liquor licensing restrictions help reduce alcohol-related violence.^[12]

What has become clear though, is the extraordinary prevalence of assaults around licensed premises. 37 percent of assaults occurred within 20 metres of licensed premises and 57 percent occurred within 50 metres.[13]

This is a great deal of violence in a very small perimeter. The Last Drinks proposals would likely reduce it. (A lower density of licensed premises would also reduce the number of intoxicated persons congregating in local areas.)

Alcohol related violence: cost to the community. The necessity for change is well justified in public policy terms.

The Australian Institute of Criminology^[14] identifies alcohol-related violence as a major social and economic cost to the community. Conservative estimates from 2008 put the total cost of alcohol related crime in Australia at $1.6 billion.[15]

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) estimated the cost of policing alcohol-related activity in NSW in 2005 was $50 million. That would pay the salaries of 1000 full-time constables.[16]

But these dollar amounts are only a proxy measure for the real costs. We sometimes use this kind of economic talk to stay a little distant from human costs that no amount of money can repay. There is little data on the cost of alcohol related violence to the NSW Health system, but the 2010 report of the NSW Chief Health Officer estimates that alcohol caused more than 1,220 deaths and 48,000 hospitalisations in NSW.[17]

A success: Newcastle’s trial of earlier closing hours. The Newcastle City Council’s trial of earlier closing hours for licensed premises in the Newcastle CBD has been evaluated by the University of Newcastle,^[18] with clear and positive outcomes.

• In 2008 licensed premises in the Newcastle CBD started ceasing alcohol service at 3am, and closing at 3.30am, in response to community pressure to reduce alcohol related violence.
• Alcohol related violence dropped by 37% as a result of the earlier closing times (measured in comparison to pubs at nearby Hamilton, which did not close earlier).
• Both the severity and incidence of alcohol related violence was reduced, relieving pressure on police and health services.

The resistance: hotels and government. Prior to the 2011 NSW election, both Barry O’Farrell and then-Premier Kristina Keneally acknowledged the effectiveness of the Newcastle initiatives. Yet they refused to apply the model more broadly across Sydney and NSW.

Both argued that local solutions were needed, in consultation with local communities. For example, licensed premises around Manly have recently volunteered to trial earlier closing times. Both politicians thought that local communities could similarly convince local publicans to voluntarily adopt earlier closing times.

This emphasis on voluntary agreement suits the Australian Hotels Association (AHA), which has denounced as “draconian and nanny-state”[19] the calls to expand the Newcastle model across all licensed premises.

Since being elected to Government, Barry O’Farrell has maintained that the Liberal Coalition Government will not support trials of earlier closing times for licensed premises, saying that local solutions should be negotiated.

This agreement with the AHA position is entirely puzzling. Consider:

• Very few people will be inconvenienced by a 3am closing time. Some people may move on to bottle shops, but many will simply go home. Note that some venues already close earlier than 3am and so will be unaffected. For venues now open until 5am, the change is minimal.
• It is hard to imagine that hotel revenues will be seriously affected by the loss of business at that late hour. However if revenues at that hour are high enough to be seriously affected, then we would need to ask how rigorously  these establishments are observing government-mandated Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) rules in the early morning.
• At a strategic level, a Liberal government should be more likely to see that a healthy community makes a healthy economy.

Speak up. Write to the NSW Premier:

The Hon Barry O’Farrell MP
Premier
Level 40 Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place
SYDNEY NSW 2000

and to your local State MP (find who at www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/find-your-local-mp.htm) and ask the NSW Government to trial earlier closing times for all licensed premises. Local communities should also be consulted and educated in how to deal with intoxicated persons.

A letter triggers a formal response and is more effective than email.

Angus Belling and Andrew Cameron
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

Addendum

A relevant story appeared on the same day as our briefing. (Sean Nicholls, ‘O’Farrell lets clubs off drink controls,’ SMH June 21, 2011.)

It outlines a policy targeting violent licensed venues. If these venues break the conditions of their liquor licence up to six times over three years, the licence will be cancelled for at least 12 months, and the licensee permanently banned.

But oddly, the policy will not apply to clubs, some of which are associated with high levels of violence. The story then details a special deal between the Liberal government and clubs, and notes the high levels of club donations that went to the Party prior to the recent election.

If true, the story is concerning. Remember that clubs are the main venue for ‘electronic gaming machines’ (EGMs, i.e. pokies), and that the Liberal government will resist Federal initiatives to set loss limits on these machines. (See Rebecca Belzer and Andrew Cameron, ‘Tackling poker machines head on,’ Social Issues briefing #091, 29 April 2011.)

Endnotes/further reading

[1] Scott Weber, ‘Last orders for drunken aggression,’ SMH November 9, 2010; Clementine Cuneo, ‘Generation Binge: top cop's fears over drink-until-you-drop culture,’ The Daily Telegraph December 14, 2010; Clementine Cuneo, ‘Surgeons join police to change culture of binge drinking ahead of weekend blitz,’ The Daily Telegraph December 14, 2010.

[2] NSW Council of Churches Media Release, ‘Churches back police call to curb booze-fuelled violence,’ 24 January 2011.

[3] Peter Kell, ‘Engage the Future,’ Sydney Anglicans March 30, 2011.

[4] NSW Nurses Association Media Release, ‘Nurses Call For Measures On Alcohol Related Crime,’ 2 April, 2010.

[5] Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Media Release, ‘Alcohol related injury the focus of Trauma Week,’ November 17, 2010.

[6] E.g. Yen F. Tai, John B. Saunders and David S. Celermajer, ‘Collateral damage from alcohol abuse: the enormous costs to Australia,’ MJA 1998; 168: 6-7.

[7] Stephen Lunn, ‘Nights of drunken rages,’ The Australian May 14, 2011.

[8] Scott Weber, ‘Who are you calling a wowser Kristina?’ The Punch 2 April 2011.

[9] Last Drinks campaign, http://www.keepourcops.org.au.

[10] Last Drinks main report, p. 6. ** This document is a most helpful ‘next step’. **

[11] Steve Moffatt, Amanda Mason, Chloe Borzycki and Don Weatherburn, Liquor licensing enforcement and assaults on licensed premises, NSW Bureau of Crime, Bureau Brief Issue paper no. 40 October 2009.

[12] Steve Moffatt and Don Weatherburn, Trends in assaults after midnight, NSW Bureau of Crime Bureau Brief Issue paper no. 59 April 2011.

[13] Melissa Burgess and Steve Moffatt, The association between alcohol outlet density and assaults on and around licensed premises, BOSCAR Crime And Justice Bulletin No. 147 January 2011 p. 1.

[14] Australian Institute of Criminology portals: http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/drugs_alcohol.aspx and http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/violence/alcohol%20and%20drug%20related%20violence.aspx .
See also media release, ‘Study finds that alcohol leads to weekend assaults,’ 4 May 2011.

[15] Australian Bureau of Criminology, Key issues in alcohol-related violence, December 2009.

[16] NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and National Drug Research Institute, Estimating the short-term cost of police time spent dealing with alcohol-related crime in NSW, 2007.

[17] Available in various formats at http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/publichealth/chorep/index.asp.

[18] Ian Kirkwood, ‘Fights down as pubs shut early,’ Newcastle Herald, 16 Sep, 2010, reporting on work of Associate Professor Kypros Kypri and team published in the international scientific journal, Addiction. See also BOSCAR, The impact of restricted alcohol availability on alcohol-related violence in Newcastle, December 2009.

[19] Sally Fielke, spokesperson AHA, ABC Radio AM, 16 September 2010.

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at:

http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

Social Issues briefing #095, 09/06/2011.

Over the past few months it has been my privilege to contribute to Kel Richards’ Sunday night program on radio 2CH. Today’s briefing is from Kel. He shows how your Christian thinking can reach others, with surprising ease. And, he asks you to join his show. Give it a go this weekend! – Andrew C

Carbon tax … live animal exports … refugees held in detention centres (or shipped to Malaysia) … Muslim billboards in Sydney … chaplains in schools … gay marriage … hotly debated issues in our society – but as a journalist glued to the media, I am not hearing Christian voices contributing to the wider discussion.

Are we waiting for denominational leaders to speak for us? Are we talking to each on Christian blogs and websites and in Christian magazines, but not to the wider society?

We can do better! Christian voices can (and should) be heard! But how? The letters pages of newspapers sometimes appear to reflect the editorial slant of the paper. They are hard to get into at the best of times. I want thoughtful, articulate, opinionated Christians to think about another medium: open line radio.

Open line radio reaches tens of thousands of our fellow Australians. Open line radio presenters are constantly looking for callers who will make “good radio” (well expressed, well thought-out opinions). Presenters of these programs may have their own slant, but callers of every point of view are welcome – as long as they’re interesting. (I’ve spent years producing and presenting these programs. I know that all I and my colleagues want are callers who are “good talent”.)

Open line radio is hungry for content. It churns through more opinions every hour than the newspaper letters page does in a week. And open line radio is open for Christians to become public voices to the wider community – instead of staying silent, or talking to each other, or waiting for a denominational leader to say something.

When you hear an issue in the news and you think “That’s wrong,” say so! When you hear an idea in the news and think “That’s good – that should be encouraged,” say so!

Here’s how to get on to an open line program (and have an impact):

• Listen (for a little while at least) to the program you want to get on to.
• Think about your message – have a clear reason for calling.
• Don’t write out a script of what you want to say.
• Do jot down a few bullet points to help you remember what you want to say.
• Can you summarise your message in a slogan? If you can, jot it down – repeat it several times during your call.
• Be gracious to the producer – and explain what you want to say briefly and clearly.
• Be gracious to the presenter – and get straight to the point.

And here’s how to practice your open line technique: call my Sunday night program on 2CH between 10pm and midnight any Sunday night. You’ll get to air, you’ll get a sympathetic hearing, and you’ll polish your open line technique.

Here’s the number to call any Sunday night 1300-13-1170. Talk through what you want to say with my producer. She’ll help you sharpen your arguments before you go on the air.

Call me on a Sunday night. Develop your skills. Then become a part of the wider public debate on as many shows as possible. Become a Christian voice heard by thousands.

-  Kel Richards, Radio 2CH

Social Issues briefing #094, 06/05/2011.

[Postscript: as you’d expect, this briefing received some push-back, which I was thankful for and interested in. I thought about updating it in light of that feedback and later writing, but have decided to let it stand as-is. It’s surprising how quickly we moved on; but the briefing remains an important snapshot that captured important issues we were all thinking and feeling in the moment. – AJC 09/06/2011]

Don’t gloat when your enemy falls, and don’t let your heart rejoice when he stumbles,  or the LORD will see, be displeased, and turn His wrath away from him.

Don’t worry because of evildoers, and don’t envy the wicked. For the evil have no future; the lamp of the wicked will be put out.

(Proverbs 24:17–20, hcsb) 

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. … Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. … Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

… The authorities that exist have been established by God. …The one in authority is God’s servant to do you good [and] an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Rom. 12:17, 19, 21; 13:1b, 4,  niv)

A Christian is glad that God knows how to hold Osama bin Laden to account for his crimes. A Christian weeps to think of anyone, even bin Laden, in hell. This response of sadness and gladness at the settled judgment of God, is the same bittersweet mix we feel at Easter.

But we feel real moral confusion in this case. If we know the infinitude of loss in the families of those whom bin Laden killed, justice has been done – a sense of satisfaction that goes to the heart of our longing for the justice of God. For ten years now, families and communities have cried out for vindication. President Obama’s “we got him” spoke, for a moment, to that longing.

Yet rejoicing in the streets at bin Laden’s death was unseemly. It was not the biblical authors’ kind of relief in God’s good judgment. Rather, it reflected the kind of vengefulness that Paul speaks of, which leaves no room for God’s wrath, hates the enemy, and is overcome by evil (Rom. 12: 19–21). As a Vatican spokesman put it:

“Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of each and every one of us before God and before man, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.”

On witnessing the spectacle of partying in the streets, my friend alluded to words George Lucas put on the lips of Padmé Amidala (played by Natalie Portman): “So this is how liberty dies … with thunderous cries of ‘U – S – A! U – S – A!’”

But is that assessment correct? Or did the United States’ effect God’s justice, as his ‘servant’? The discussion about whether this U. S. action was just, pivots on a few considerations.

1. Is the ‘war on terror’ really a war, or is it a series of police actions against criminals?
2. Did bin Laden die as a military commander in a war? Or was it an arrest gone wrong?
3. U. S. servicemen were acting on a ‘capture or kill’ order. But was there any intention to capture and try Osama bin Laden?

There is much we don’t and cannot know. But the questions remain important, because the U. S. government is entrusted with weapons of deadly force only so that justice might be done. Since bin Laden has murdered so many (and unless we disagree with capital punishment), most will think that justice was done in outcome. But was justice done and seen to be done in the process?

War can only be justified, if at all, as a kind of ‘rough justice’. As the U. K. theologian and ethicist Oliver O’Donovan puts it, normal processes of justice are like ‘surgery performed under clinical conditions in a hospital’; whereas justice in war is like ‘an emergency operation, performed in a remote mountain hut with a penknife’ (The Just War Revisited, p. 18). We should always prefer and work toward the former; but sometimes, we must with melancholy settle for the latter.

O’Donovan further observes (The Ways of Judgment, chs. 1–2) that human justice is always ‘imperfectible’. It cannot reach into the heart of the offender and cause him to repent. It cannot turn back upon him what he truly deserves. It cannot restore the endless losses of the heart that victims have suffered. Justice cannot always be conducted with the best of processes: we need to prepare arrests in secret, prosecute charges with imperfect evidence, and navigate the political fallout from the supporters of the accused.

But good justice values even a criminal. To practice justice well is to assert that human life is precious, even if the criminal pretends it is not. For justice to be seen to be done, it requires due process, a proper accounting of the evidence, and the willingness to operate in a way quite different to the methods of the offender. In this regard the U. S. did well to try Saddam Hussein for war crimes. Even if the process was compromised at points, it had some transparency.

The problem with construing the ‘war on terror’ as a war has been that war licenses ever looser standards of rough justice. It then becomes hard to return from these, because the society involved becomes calloused against the value of their opponents, and against the value of human life in general. (This point is well explored in relation to bin Laden in the four opinion pieces, listed below.)

So, does the U. S. action meet even the most minimal account of imperfect justice? It is important to put aside the consequentialist reasoning used to defend the U. S. action. These justifications argue that quick ‘justice’ sidestepped the inevitable quagmire of Islamist support and violence for Osama. (Consequentialists never attend to the flip side of their consequentialism: in this case, that we will likely reap the whirlwind from disaffected admirers of bin Laden, who suspect that Western ‘justice’ is corrupt.) Worse, the improvement in Obama’s political fortunes, or even the ‘restoration’ of America’s image, has been used to justify the killing. If these considerations justify the action, then there is no such thing as ‘justice’ and we should stop talking as if there is.

Even if bin Laden was a dangerous combatant in a war, the history of ‘just’ warfare has drawn the line at killing combatants because we can. In ‘just’ warfare, we only kill combatants when they pose a clear and present danger. Perhaps bin Laden did so, with a suicide vest, or an AK-47 near at hand. We don’t know from this distance, and no one can really second-guess the servicemen in the room.

According to Leon Pannetta, the current director of the CIA, U. S. Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the President. But ‘the authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered, and didn’t appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him. To be frank, I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.’

If there was no real intention to capture bin Laden, and if the raid was effectively an extra-judicial assassination rather than an arrest gone wrong, then U. S. governance is on very dangerous terrain.

The rule of law was once the secular West’s quiet euphemism for the subservience owed by governments to the rule of Christ. Cavalier rejection of the rule of law reflects a titanic pretension in human governance. If the U. S. now sanctions extra judicial assassination, it subscribes to only one ordering moral principle: U. S. interest. That in turn means that the United States Government has reduced ‘human rights’ to a nationalist hermeneutic, where the humans with rights are the citizens of the U. S. and its client states. If so, the U. S. embodies a post-Christian turn from the rule of law to the rule of might, and would no longer be remotely a ‘Christian nation’ but a nation little different to ancient Rome – whom Christians had to come against, with the gospel.

The most powerful collective on earth must be interested to demonstrate that for justice to be done, it also must be seen to be done, through due processes of law. If the last ten years has hardened this nation as a people, and has cheapened their valuing of human life, then the time has come time has come for Christians within and beyond the U. S. to help this nation think again.

-          Andrew Cameron
(for the Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Further Reading

O’Donovan, Oliver M.T.:
 The Ways of Judgment: The Bampton Lectures, 2003. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, chs. 1–2.
The Just War Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, chs. 6–7 .

Geoffrey Robertson, ‘Bin Laden’s summary execution maketh the man, martyr and myth’, 4 May 2011, available at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/bin-ladens-summary-execution-maketh-the-man-martyr-and-myth-20110503-1e6md.html

Cynthia Banham, ‘Operation Get Osama signals loss of values’, 6 May 2011, available at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/operation-get-osama-signals-loss-of-values-20110505-1e9xq.html

Gideon Boas and Pascale Chifflet, ‘Order for execution was illegal’, 5 May 2011, available at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/order-for-execution-was-illegal-20110504-1e8bp.html

Moira Rayner, ‘The murder of Osama bin Laden,’ Eureka Street 3 May 2011, available at http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=26146

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at:

http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

Conditions of use

1. You may forward this paper to others, as long as you forward it in full.

2. You may freely publish it (e.g. in a church newspaper) as long as it is published in full, not for profit, and including the ‘Note’ paragraph. (You don’t have to include these ‘conditions’.)

3. Media and academic publishers should cite this paper according to their professional standards. We would appreciate audiences being directed to www.sie.org.au.

4. Not-for-profit publishers may use the ideas in this paper without acknowledgement; but if quoting it directly, please cite title, author(s), and the web link www.sie.org.au.

5. Permission may be given for use in publications for profit. Please send details of your proposal to social.issues@moore.edu.au.

Social Issues briefing #093, 29/04/2011.

Some may recall that I mysteriously disappeared at the end of 2008 to work on something called the ‘Freedom of Religion and Belief project’. It’s quite odd when people go off to work on something, only to hear nothing further. This briefing completes that story.

The following paragraphs have been kindly supplied by the Diocesan Secretary, Robert Wicks, and are a modified version of his report to the Standing Committee of the Diocese. (If you want to cut to the chase, go straight to paragraph 7.)

1. On 17 September 2008 the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) launched the ‘Freedom of religion and belief project’ (FRB). The FRB’s terms of reference were to address the experiences and place in civil society of every religious and secular belief. However the initial impetus for the FRB was a concern about the treatment of Muslims within the broader Australian community, exemptions to anti-discrimination law and the value of religious anti-vilification law.
2. At its meeting on 22 September 2008, the Standing Committee endorsed the formation of an oversight committee comprising the Rev Dr Andrew Cameron, Mr Robert Wicks and Bishop Robert Forsyth (chair) to co-ordinate the initial response of the Diocese to the FRB. The Oversight Committee prepared a submission to FRB on behalf of the Standing Committee and co-ordinated the preparation of a 9 related submissions from various organisations and individuals within the Diocese. These were lodged with the FRB as separate but related submissions under cover of a letter from the Archbishop on 25 February 2009.
3. By the closing date for submissions on 28 February 2009, the FRB had received almost 2,000 submissions.
4. On 19 May 2009 the Oversight Committee hosted a Sydney stakeholders’ meeting between the AHRC researchers, Professors Des Cahill and Gary Bouma, and a number of denominational/organisational representatives from the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, the Baptist Union of New South Wales, the Sydney Roman Catholic Diocese, Wesley Mission and the Australian Association of Christian Schools.
5. The initial expectation was that the final FRB report would be released in early 2010. However the report was ultimately launched in Canberra on 21 March 2011. Robert Wicks attended the launch, and also a pre-launch briefing at the offices of the Australian Christian Lobby given by Mr Graeme Innes, the Race Discrimination and Disability Commissioner who launched the report. Bishop Forsyth and Dr Cameron were unable to attend.
6. The initial concern was that the report would include recommendations which, if implemented, would detrimentally impact religious freedom in Australia.
7. In the end, the report did not include any recommendations. Instead it sought to capture the conversation around religion and belief in Australia. Despite the relatively high representation of non-Christian faiths during the consultation process, it is fair to say that the report itself clearly articulates the views of conservative Christianity. To that extent the outcome of the FRB is pleasing. Also pleasing is the interaction in the report with the submissions made on behalf of the Standing Committee and other agencies within the Diocese. The report is a useful snapshot of several discussions about religion in Australia, including its various interactions with the State. However, the project’s initial ambitions, the volume of responses, and the length of time that has passed since it was launched, might reasonably have been expected to deliver more data. The relative brevity of the report and its eclectic method of summarizing various discussions is somewhat anticlimactic.
8. Mr Innes indicated in his pre-launch briefing that, in view the AHRC’s current priority being human rights education, the AHRC did not have the capacity to pursue any of the matters raised in the report at this time. However the report would be made available to Government departments to take into account as they develop policy.
9. The approach taken by those responsible for preparing the report should be seen as a positive outcome for the Christian community. However there remains a need to be vigilant in the area of religious freedom. In particular there remains a considerable threat to freedom of religion across the western world, mainly arising from a new ideology about “equality”. There is therefore a need to keep fine tuning the intellectual arguments to counter this ideology and to make sure that these arguments are heard in the public square.

-          Andrew Cameron (and Robert Wicks)
(for the Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Sources and Further Reading

Freedom of religion and belief in 21^st Century Australia, A research report prepared for the Australian Human Rights Commission, 2011, available for download at

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/index.html

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at:

http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

It was a surprise for many Australians to hear news reports this week that a national Anglican body was recommending to ‘dump’ the ‘baby bonus’, a lump-sum payment of several thousand dollars made to mothers of newborns. This briefing tells the story behind the story.

The latest ‘official’ position of the Anglican Church of Australia only calls upon Government to ‘consider carefully any incentive aimed specifically and primarily at increasing Australia’s population while continuing to support low-income families.’ (The relevant motion is reproduced at the end of this briefing.)

The body that made the news was the Public Affairs Commission (PAC) of the General Synod of Anglican Church of Australia. This is a ‘think tank’ of a dozen people, from across Australia’s various Anglican churches, which advises General Synod on national social issues. It is like a national version of what the Social Issues Executive does for the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. (I am also a member of the PAC.)

The news story arises from a PAC submission to a Commonwealth Government enquiry on sustainable population. The PAC’s submission included a supporting paper offered by the twelve members of the PAC. It also included the ‘official’ stance of the General Synod, above, but went further. The General Synod did not specifically endorse the submission, because Anglicanism is actually a sprawling democracy. It is common practice for various Anglican bodies to make their own submissions to government. (See our Briefing #093 for an example where in a different context, ten Sydney Anglican bodies made submissions.)

The PAC submission calls for debate on the drivers of Australian population growth. It does not revise orthodox Christian thought about reproduction, but proposes the ‘removal of public incentives aimed at increasing the birth rate and replacing them with support for improvements in the capacity of parents to be fully attentive to their babies, e.g. by increasing paid maternal and paternal leave’ (p. 17; see also the summary on p. 18). The comment is made in the context of a much wider discussion: for example, the submission also called for wider systems of support for families with young children, and noted the need to have a compassionate attitude toward humanitarian entrants to Australia’s system of immigration.

The comment about the baby bonus only questions a public policy which may distort ‘natural’ population growth, and which is not necessarily the best way to support children and parenting. It need not be taken as ‘anti-family’ to question this particular public policy, if there are other and better ways to support families. For example, better provisions for maternity and paternity leave may be more helpful for a child than a lump sum payment at the beginning of his or her life, since such payments can easily be spent on other things, rather than on the child’s ongoing needs.

Of course, the more substantial discussion is about whether population growth is a problem; and Christians disagree about the state of the natural environment and our response to it. Many Christians think that population growth is no problem, and defend its link to economic growth. (I question such views in a more technical article.) However, even if population needs to be ‘sustainable’, it remains very important not to make it so at the expense of children and the unborn. That is, no Christian position on population can drift into the anti-human stance that abortion and severe reproduction controls are the answers. We can think much more creatively about how to uphold both the created order and the good of humanity.

Not all Christians may agree with the General Synod’s stance on care for the environment, or with the PAC paper’s stance on population. But the PAC has not drifted into an anti-human or anti-reproduction stance. Its proposal about the ‘baby bonus’ need not be taken as such.

-          Andrew Cameron
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

Caring for the Creation
(Motion 89/10, General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, 21 September 2010)

That this General Synod of The Anglican Church of Australia gives thanks to Almighty God for the gracious gift of human life and for the privilege of being divine image bearers.

Synod acknowledges:

a)       that all human life comes from God, irrespective of age, gender, race, or ability, and that God does not delight in the death of any he has made, and notes:

b)      Resolution I.8 of the Lambeth Conference 1998, which
(i) reaffirms the Biblical vision of Creation according to which the divine spirit is present in Creation and human beings have responsibility to make personal and corporate sacrifices for the common good of all Creation; and
(ii)  recognizes that unless human beings take responsibility for caring for the earth, the consequences will be catastrophic because of: overpopulation, unsustainable levels of consumption by the rich, poor quality and shortage of water, air pollution, eroded and impoverished soil, forest destruction, and animal extinction.

c)       the encouragement in Resolution 14.15 of the Anglican Consultative Council in May 2009 for Provinces ‘to advocate sustainable restorative economies with national governments, the United Nations through the Anglican Observers Office, and local constituencies’.

And requests

1. Australian Anglican Dioceses and individuals to:
   (i)  Grow in understanding of global and national environmental challenges, and the role of human population growth in contributing to them.
   (ii) Use resources including those identified by the General Synod’s Public Affairs Commission and Environment Working Group to assist in developing integrated views of issues and potential responses, and take action to reduce our impacts.
   (iii) Contribute thoughtfully and prayerfully to public debate about how to
   - achieve justice not only for current Australians but for our descendants,
   - nurture and protect, nurture and protect life on this fragile land with all its beauty and
     diversity life on this fragile land with all its beauty and diversity,
   - share in a world of finite resources, showing love for our neighbours, particularly those
     who live in the two-thirds world,
   (iv) Remain confident in the gospel of Jesus Christ to address environmental challenges as it calls people to turn from human selfishness and greed.
   (v) Prayerfully consider and reduce their levels of consumption.
   (vi) Explore ways to ensure that every child is welcomed and has the opportunity to reach his/her full potential.
2. The Australian Government to:
   (i) Recognise the role of population growth and unsustainable levels of consumption by the affluent in contributing to global and national environmental challenges, and avoid any reliance on continuing population growth to maintain economic growth.
   (ii) Determine a sustainable population policy for Australia which is fair and just.
   (iii) Consider carefully any incentive aimed specifically and primarily at increasing Australia’s population while continuing to support low-income families and sustainable immigration.
   (iv) Support agricultural research both to care for our land and to preserve our ability to produce food.
   (v) Contribute more generously to improving the welfare of people in the least developed nations, and other life in their environments, in particular by including support for family planning and women’s reproductive health programmes with aid for development, in ways that respect the cultures of those people and take account of Christian values including respect for the sanctity of all human life.
3. The reporting of the outcome of this Motion to the United Nations Anglican Observers’ Office.

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at:

http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

Conditions of use

1. You may forward this paper to others, as long as you forward it in full.

2. You may freely publish it (e.g. in a church newspaper) as long as it is published in full, not for profit, and including the ‘Note’ paragraph. (You don’t have to include these ‘conditions’.)

3. Media and academic publishers should cite this paper according to their professional standards. We would appreciate audiences being directed to www.sie.org.au.

4. Not-for-profit publishers may use the ideas in this paper without acknowledgement; but if quoting it directly, please cite title, author(s), and the web link www.sie.org.au.

5. Permission may be given for use in publications for profit. Please send details of your proposal to social.issues@moore.edu.au.

Social Issues briefing #091, 29/04/2011.

“Ilona Roberts, 67 was furious when she discovered her 95-year-old mother, Mandy, had been withdrawing $200 a day at the local club and spending it on poker machines. How could staff not have noticed the frail woman with dementia sitting at the poker machine daily and losing her life savings? How could they have let it happen?

… Piles of ATM receipts were the first clue that her mother, a self-funded retiree, had emptied her small bank accounts, and was now draining her term deposits to fund daily visits to the nearby club. “Mum used to say ‘I’d never put in more than $20 or $30’, but then I’d see $200 going each day. She lost track”, Ms Roberts said. When it came time to move into an aged care facility, her previously ‘well off’ mother didn’t have the funds. “She’d done over $100,000…”

Compare this story with the story of Tweed Heads Twin Town Services Club. Last year, they received $36.7 million in revenue from poker machines, whilst donating only $946,000 in cash gifts or service. And all this despite being a ‘not-for-profit’ club. Further, thanks to a legal loophole, the services they ‘donated’ or claimed as ‘community contributions’ can include services for the exclusive use of club members. Things like buildings, and bars, and beer taps – hardly what we would expect when we think of ‘charitable gifts’.

This contradiction is jarring. These stories sound like a re-written version of David vs Goliath, where Goliath wins.

But now, a unique political opportunity for Federal independent MPs has presented an opportunity to reform a small but extremely damaging section of the gambling industry – poker machines.

What is the current situation?

Gambling is a big industry in Australia. The most recent report released by the Australasian Gambling Council, A Database on Australia’s Gambling Industry 2009-10, estimated that during 2008-09 there were just under 200,000 gaming machines in Australia, with 96,000 of them in NSW. Australia ranks eighth on a global index of poker machines per country. If NSW were listed in this index as a country, it would rank ninth, just behind Australia, Germany and Italy, and above Canada. In 2008, over $10 billion was spent on gaming machines alone in Australia.

Given the saturation of gambling (and particularly poker machines) in Australian society, it is no surprise to learn from the recent report on gambling by the Productivity Commission that there are between 80,000 and 160,000 problem gamblers in Australia, and between 230,000 and 350,000 people at moderate risk. These people at moderate risk still experience harm resulting from their gambling, and are at risk of progressing to problem gambling. One of the findings from the Productivity Commission report was that ‘gambling can have adverse health, emotional and financial impacts on many more people than those categorised as ‘problem gamblers’. This shows the wide network of people affected by gambling.

These problem gamblers contribute around 40% of total gaming machine losses (and the Productivity Commission suggested that the real figure contributed by problem gamblers could be as high as 60% of total poker spending). This means that a small percentage of poker machine users are possibly losing up to half or even more of the total revenue being collected by poker machines. A submission by Clubs Australia to the Productivity Commission admitted that clubs are reaping $800 million each year from problem gamblers. The Productivity Commission suggested that the real figure is probably double this.

The gambling industry tells us that poker machines are simply for recreation, and that they provide responsible Australians with harmless fun. A ‘night on the pokies’ has even been compared with a ‘night out’ at the movies with dinner. But this line is hard to sustain when you consider the facts about poker machines. These facts tell us that:

• in NSW, you can load a machine with up to $10,000 at a time;
• Australian law permits poker machines to consume $1200 each hour, and each spin can have up to $10 bet on it (with 20 spins or more possible each minute); and
• poker machines are carefully designed to be as seductive and addictive as possible. The common feeling of ‘I know I’m losing, but I’m sure that I’ll hit the big one if I just play one more time’ is no coincidence – the machines are designed to break a user’s resolve and keep the gaming machine user pressing the button until there is nothing left to put in.

When you consider these things, it’s hard to compare playing poker machines with a dinner for two, movie tickets and popcorn for $100.

The other side of the current situation is the revenue that gambling brings to governments through various taxes. Our governments are now too dependent on tax revenue. In NSW and Victoria, gambling revenue provided $1.6 billion in 2008-9, approximately 9% of total state revenue in NSW and 13% in Victoria. A very large percentage of this $1.6 billion comes from losses made by poker machine users. Any reform of the gambling industry that reduces tax revenue for cash-strapped state governments will not be popular with those governments, despite the savings that will slowly come through as the negative and costly flow on effects from gambling addiction start to ease.

What is being proposed?

The government’s proposal (or more specifically, the proposal initiated by MP Andrew Wilkie) is to require poker machine users to set their maximum loss as a limit before they start playing gaming machines. Once this limit has been reached, the user would be locked out of playing any poker machines in Australia until the specified time period has ended. This ‘precommitment’ gives control back to poker machine users by forcing them to consider how much they are willing to lose before sitting in front of machines in environments where both machine and environment has been carefully designed to be seductive and addictive.

These changes are not going to stop people from using poker machines, and they won’t even stop people from losing a lot of money on poker machines. But they will mean that people can’t deceive themselves over the amounts of money they are losing on poker machines.

The gaming and clubs industry are vehemently opposing these changes, because they know that 40% (and possibly up to 60%) of their revenue from poker machines comes from problem gamblers. Clubs Australia and the gaming industry is a very powerful force in Australia, and they have launched a $20 million campaign to stop the proposed reforms. Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has recently been quoted accusing the industry of trying to buy opinions in the debate over the proposed reforms. ‘Democracy is on trial here by powerful lobby groups.’ A smear campaign against Mr Wilkie has also been started virally, coincidentally at the same time as the advertising campaign by Clubs Australia.

Introducing any reforms to an industry that is such a river of gold for the few will always be difficult. But technical experts say that the reforms can be fairly easily implemented. They are also hugely desirable from a social perspective. The proposed changes need to be implemented: every year that these reforms are delayed will mean more of those casual gamblers ‘at moderate risk’ will move into being problem gamblers, causing possibly irreversible damage to themselves, their spouses, children, families and jobs. The Productivity Commission conservatively suggests they be implemented before 2016. Andrew Wilkie wants to see them mandated well before that.

Some people (maybe even you) argue that it’s pointless to regulate gambling in such a way. ‘If people want to throw away their money, it’s not the Government’s role to stop them’. Or, ‘the Government has no right to make it difficult for me to responsibly enjoy a flutter on the pokies every once in a while’. These arguments would be fair, if it wasn’t for the huge numbers of innocent victims that suffer due to uncontrolled use of poker machines. We can’t ignore the hurt and misery that gambling addiction spreads in communities – to spouses, children, wider family and friends, employers and employees.

Mr Wilkie’s intransigent resolve to lessen the damage that poker machines cause is a significant opportunity for Australians to stand alongside him and say ‘no’ to the destructiveness of addiction to gambling on poker machines, and ‘yes’ to new ways forward for local clubs to become places of fun and friendly community networks to develop and grow.

How can we have better dreams for our community?

In this area, Christians are often cast as ‘naysayers’, ‘wowsers’ and ‘prohibitionists’. But we have so much to offer our society about how to care well for each other, and what it looks like to create safe communities of families and friends. So let’s also think about how we can dream bigger, and say ‘yes’ to healthier and happier communities. For example, wouldn’t it be an achievement if local clubs could become family-friendly places for friends to meet together, share a meal, and become more involved in a network of community relationships and events? As Christians, we have much to offer those around us about what it looks like to create spaces that meet our needs for friendship, social activities and support. If clubs fear losing relevance when poker machine usage drops, let’s suggest other possibilities about how they could better use their premises.

What else can we do?

In the face of a powerful lobby group like Clubs Australia and the wider gambling industry, we need to make the most of what we have: thousands of people who care deeply about people and want to stop unnecessary harm caused by gambling addiction. For Anglicare Sydney’s CEO Peter Kell, ‘Now more than ever it seems that the Prime Minister is trying to engage the Church. Imagine if tens of thousands of Christian people wrote to the PM, offering their support for the pre-commitment gaming reforms. Imagine if thousands of churches prayed for better care for those addicted to poker machines. There is real power and influence to wield. And all of Australia will benefit.’

These are wonderful things to imagine, and do.

-          Rebecca Belzer and Andrew Cameron
(for the Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Sources and Further Reading

Australasian Gaming Council, Database on Australia’s Gambling Industries 09/10, available at www.austgamingcouncil.org.au

Australian Government Productivity Commission, Gambling Inquiry Report, available at http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009/report

Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform – Inquiry into Pre-Commitment, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/gamblingreform_ctte/precommitment_scheme/index/htm

Poker Machine Reform fact sheet by Senator Nick Xenophon, http://www.nickxenophon.com.au/itsabigfatlie/

Costello, Tim, ‘Clubs are addicted to a jackpot they refuse to relinquish’, SMH April 14, 2011.

Kell, Peter, ‘Dirty Rotten Lies’, available on Sydneyanglicans.net at http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/dirty_rotten_lies/

Needham, Kirsty, ‘Frail mother, 95, with dementia allowed to whittle away life savings’, SMH April 12, 2011.

O’Malley, Nick, ‘Clubs hitting the jackpot and keeping most of the booty’, SMH April 16, 2011.

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at:

http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

Social Issues briefing #090, 9/02/2011.

It is always difficult to address same-sex issues without being sidelined as homophobic or out-of-date, or without appearing to unfairly single out those people who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. In all such conflicts, Christians need to own the glaring failures we carry in ourselves, and the inadequacies we bring to our churches.

But we can accept homosexual people without agreeing with them on everything. As a debate about extending marriage to same-sex relationships gathers pace, we may disagree with the proposal respectfully and carefully. We can continue to work at doing so well, even when the disagreement has been badly handled in the past.

We have never intended for these briefings to become dominated by a limited set of conservative ‘hot button’ issues. We don’t particularly want to keep addressing them. But a response is in order when someone else proposes to change to the law.

In this case, recent media and political discussion in Australia means that we are compelled to carefully restate our opposition to proposals for same-sex relationships to be given the title ‘marriage’, which is now reserved in Australian law to ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’ (Marriage Act 1961, §§ 5, 46).

The current situation

Prime Minister Gillard has indicated that her government has no intention to alter these words. Consistent with this undertaking, there doesn’t appear to be any plans by the Government to bring or support a Bill to legalise same-sex unions as marriage. This concurs with current ALP policy, which has been upheld at ALP National Conferences in the past.

However, it has been reported by journalist Paul Osborne that ‘Labor's national conference had been brought forward six months to December 2011 in order to debate gay marriage and separate it from the election cycle’.

In the meantime, a resolution was recently passed by the House of Representatives requesting parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the so-called ‘issue of marriage equality’. Here it is:

Motion resolved by the Commonwealth House of Representatives
(18 November 2010):

‘This house:

(1)    notes that there is:

a)              a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and

b)             widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and

(2)    calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.’

Depending on parliamentarians attempts to ‘gauge their constituents’ views’, and on the outcome of the ALP National Conference, it is possible that legislation could be introduced under this Labor Government to change the current definition of ‘marriage’ in the Marriage Act 1961.

The ‘story’ of marriage

The Parliamentary motion above loads the dice in favour of same-sex marriage by calling it ‘the issue of marriage equality’, because everyone likes ‘equality’. This focus upon equality, and an underlying presumption in favour of personal autonomy, tends to dominate our discussions of marriage. Where a proposal is thought to extend equality and personal autonomy, it is hard for other considerations to seem important.

Same-sex couples currently enjoy equitable treatment in all aspects relevant to de facto couple status. The current ability in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT to register same-sex partnerships on a relationships register provides public recognition and affirmation of their relationships.

The push for same-sex marriage is therefore now largely ideological, because same-sex couples are not disadvantaged without it (unless we accept that it is homophobic not to give homosexual people further recognition).

No one is done a real injustice when we positively honour and uphold marriage as currently understood. We currently honour those who are united in lifelong, opposite sex, faithful and procreative relationships by calling them ‘married’. In a liberal democracy, others can form other types of relationships; but ‘marriage’ is a term of honour reserved for a particular kind of relationship.

Until recently, a marriage was understood to be a gender complementary, sexually exclusive, procreative and child-oriented lifelong relationship. The deep story of how it came to be so is complex. On the one hand, some aspects of marriage seemed obvious where societies sought a stable environment in which to raise children. But other aspects of it (such as lifelong, one-to-one faithfulness) arose from, or were at least amplified by, the Judeo-Christian revelation of a faithful God who bound himself to one people – a revolutionary concept in ancient contexts that were much given to polygamy.

But over the years, successive Western societies have seen each element of marriage become open to renegotiation by couples:

• Historically, marriage was regarded as procreative and child-oriented. Marriage was understood as a stable environment for the raising of children in a secure relationship with a mother and a father. But the prevalence of contraception and abortion – and right and proper efforts to uphold the children of single parents – have reduced children to a kind of after-market marital option. Child-rearing is no longer regarded as basic to marriage. (This comment should not be taken to reflect badly upon the involuntarily childless. In Christian thought, the absence of children in a marriage does not imply a ‘lesser’ marriage. Christian thinkers have consistently opposed claims for divorce, often levelled by a man against a woman, based on childlessness.)
• Marriage was regarded as lifelong – an expression of the kind of faithfulness God extended to ancient Israel. In this milieu, divorce was reserved for the most severe cases of breakdown and hardship. A general expectation of lifelong faithfulness often had the effect of motivating struggling couples to resolve conflict, and so to heal and grow their relationship. But a progressive expansion in what is regarded as ‘breakdown’ and ‘hardship’ has eroded marriage’s lifelong claim. We often now regard marriage as lasting only ‘as long as it works’ or ‘as long as we love each other’. In short, lifelong faithfulness is no longer seriously regarded as essential to marriage.
• Marriage has generally been regarded as sexually exclusive. This element of it remains somewhat intact, except when those who propound ‘open’ marriages, or who conduct affairs, often now only receive a snigger. There is no real reason to expect that sexual exclusivity will remain a defining feature of Western marriage.
• Marriage was historically regarded as gender complementary. The logic of this complementarity was partly that men and women actually do ‘complement’ one other in mysterious and difficult to quantify ways; and partly that children do best in the presence of a loving mother and a loving father, who bring to the child an ongoing experience of differently gendered adults. But Western society has recently decided that gender difference is unimportant, as reflected (among other things) in adoption law that permits same-sex parenting. The decision to sideline gender difference in marriage will extend this trend, and strip away the final historical distinctive of marriage.

Each time one of these elements of marriage is removed, Western society crosses a kind of Rubicon. When gender difference is also removed, there is no reason to exclude any imagined candidate for ‘marriage’. In the United States, legalisation of gay marriage has led to calls for polygamy to be legalised, since polygamy can also be based on loving, consensual relationships. In December 2010, it was reported in Swiss and British newspapers that the upper house of the Swiss parliament is considering a law decriminalising incest (sex between consenting family members), saying that the laws are now ‘obsolete’ (since procreation is optional). Daniel Vischer, a Green party MP, was reported as saying that there was nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, even if they are related. On this logic, there remains little basis to exclude ‘marriage’ for minors, or between groups of friends, or for any combination where consent can be demonstrated.

The point here is simply to observe the inevitable logic of post-Christian society. Christians should not be too shocked by each of these erosions. In a way, they are to be expected. Christians don’t have any radical new arguments other than to continue to praise this particular and special relationship – that lifelong, opposite sex, faithful, procreative adventure we currently call ‘marriage’.

It follows that we will also continue to ask our neighbours: ‘are you so sure that each element of marriage – lifelong sexually exclusivity, child-oriented procreativity and gender complementarity – is unimportant?’ The environmental movement has helpfully reminded us of how foolish it is to evade our relationship to the natural environment. Likewise, Christians regard these elements of marriage as naturally inherent to our humanity, so that a society only fools itself when it attempts to pretend them away.

Interestingly, a French decision in January 2011 seems to echo some of this thinking. The French Constitutional Council (often considered to act as France’s supreme court) upheld the legislature’s refusal to name same-sex relationships as marriage. It held that France’s parliament has the freedom to retain marriage as currently understood. The case was brought by lesbian partners Corinne Cestino and Sophie Hasslauer, who wanted France to follow other EU states. (The European Court of Human Rights had previously said that countries are free to legislate on the issue; and Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Sweden legislated for marriage between same-sex partners after it was legalised in the Netherlands in 2001.)

The Council ruled that a refusal of same-sex marriage does not violate the French constitution. French lawmakers, it said, had agreed that the “difference in situations between same-sex couples and couples made up of a man and a woman can justify a difference in treatment concerning family rights”. In June 2006, the European Court ruled that the region’s human rights convention “did not oblige a state to grant a same-sex couple access to marriage” as marriage has “deep-rooted social and cultural connotations”.

In other words, this ruling acknowledges that no one is disadvantaged when a society retains a distinctive name for these lifelong, opposite sex, faithful and procreative relationships. In Western history, Christian insights that each element is important have sprung from the Bible, and have been confirmed in social experience by creating (generally) safe zones for extraordinary relationships of care, particularly for children.

Lifelong, gender complementary, sexually exclusive, procreative and child-oriented marriage may be difficult, but it remains important. We need more laws that are friendly to it as-is, not laws that will further corrode it. In contrast, ‘marriage equality’ simply demands that all who want to be called ‘married’ should be given what they want. But such a move will effectively destroy marriage as a meaningful element of our common life.

Where to from here?

The good news is that whatever our society decides to do, Christians will continue to inhabit lives either of celibate singleness, or of that lifelong, gender complementary, sexually exclusive, procreative and child-oriented thing we now call ‘marriage’. Given enough decades, others will want it back. But if other relationships are denoted as ‘marriage’, there will be some social friction along the way.

In response to the Parliamentary motion above, the best course of action is to continue to respectfully engage with our political representatives by:

• calmly and thoughtfully responding to the 18 November motion (in a way which does not accuse the Federal government of planning to legislate for same-sex marriage);
• expressing opposition to same-sex marriage being legalised in Australia; and
• explaining why marriage, as currently understood, needs to be upheld and protected in Australia.

Also, the Australian Christian Lobby has launched a campaign called man+wife4life!, calling on politicians to respect and defend the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act. You may like to sign their petition in support of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman (www.makeastand.org.au/campaign/index.php?campaign_id=39).

We have also listed some recommended reading relating to marriage in general, rather than specifically about same-sex marriage. It will help you engage by promoting and praising the positive framework for marriage, rather than simply by opposing the proposals we disagree with.

-          Andrew Cameron and Rebecca Belzer
(for the Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Sources and Further Reading

Social Issues Executive briefings and booklet:

#011: ‘The dreams and realities of marriage’, http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/the_dreams_and_realities_of_marriage

#012: ‘What makes a marriage’, http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/what_makes_a_marriage

#070: ‘The Queen and the humanity of marriage’,
http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/the_queen_and_the_humanity_of_marriage

#072: ‘The churches and sexual wholeness together’, http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/the_churches_and_sexual_wholeness_together

#075: ‘Living together: conservative Christians and same sex relationships’,
http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/living_together_conservative_christians_and_same_sex_relationships

#076: ‘Beyond homophobia, toward new terms of debate’, SIE briefing,
http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/beyond_homophobia_toward_new_terms_of_debate

Family: A Christian Approach, http://www.sie.org.au/pdf/reports/SIE_Family-a_Christian_approach.pdf.

Ash, Christopher, Marriage: Sex in the service of God. Leicester, IVP, 2003.

Hall, Allan, ‘Switzerland considers repealing incest laws’, Telegraph 17 December 2010,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html

Hughes, Selwyn, Marriage as God intended. Kingsway Publications Ltd, 1984.

Kostenberger, Andreas J, God, Marriage and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. Crossway, 2004.

Osborne, Paul, ‘Bitar to stay on as ALP national secretary’, ninemsn 19 November 2010. Online: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8144236/bitar-to-stay-on-as-alp-national-secretary.

Roberts, Christopher Chenault. Creation and covenant: the significance of sexual difference in the moral theology of marriage. New York: T&T Clark International, 2007.

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at:

http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

Conditions of use

1. You may forward this paper to others, as long as you forward it in full.

2. You may freely publish it (e.g. in a church newspaper) as long as it is published in full, not for profit, and including the ‘Note’ paragraph. (You don’t have to include these ‘conditions’.)

3. Media and academic publishers should cite this paper according to their professional standards. We would appreciate audiences being directed to www.sie.org.au.

4. Not-for-profit publishers may use the ideas in this paper without acknowledgement; but if quoting it directly, please cite title, author(s), and the web link www.sie.org.au.

5. Permission may be given for use in publications for profit. Please send details of your proposal to social.issues@moore.edu.au.

Social Issues Briefing #089, 3/02/2011

Christians always have an edgy time of it in discussions of media that includes explicit sex, violence and abuse, or when we hear ads on the radio for a sex exhibition while driving the kids to school, or watch a movie depicting realistic violence that we weren’t expecting. On the one hand, we’ve become convinced that as superficially attractive as these things are, they corrode us at a deeper level. It seems obvious to Christians that we become easily addicted and shaped by whatever we fill our eyes and heads with. The apostle Peter once spoke of people becoming ‘slaves’ to whatever masters them (2 Peter 2:19), and that when Christians separate themselves from these inputs, others ‘are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery,’ (1 Pet. 4:4). This kind of conflict seems to keep repeating itself in every society Christians participate in.

But on the other hand, censorship and classification schemes will always be fraught with difficulty. We know that to curtail free expression in a free society could very easily be co-opted to shut down expressions of the gospel. So we find ourselves in a society that prides itself on being liberal, progressive and democratic, yet that is riddled with tensions and contradictions in this area. An extreme case is represented by the many who want the freedom and latitude, as adults, to view and listen to whatever they choose, even if it might be seen as offensive by others. Yet Australian society does draw the line at images of child pornography, or of extreme violence. So a broad consensus about our current system of classification has arisen, in order to protect our children from harm and to provide everyone with the ability to make informed decisions about what they watch.

Classification schemes can be difficult to understand and hard to find. Yet they are important because they have such a significant impact on the issues we have raised above. They affect the content that we and our children see on TV, at the movies, and use on the internet and our mobile phones. They are necessary in order to help us make informed decisions about what shows and movies to watch by giving us information about the levels of violence, sex and nudity that will be seen.

Details of the Senate inquiry into the classification scheme

Why are we talking about these things?

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee is having an inquiry into the Australian film and literature classification scheme, and anyone can make a submission. You can find out more about the inquiry (at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/classification_board/index.htm), and a copy of the Terms of Reference is attached at the end of this email. This inquiry provides us with a great opportunity to speak into this debate, and remind those who are making decisions about the importance of a comprehensive and robust scheme to provide protection for our children (and ourselves) from viewing offensive content.

The Terms of Reference are, frankly, a bit daunting. But we don’t want you to be fazed. At very least, we suggest that you respectfully share with the Senators any experiences where you think the classification system has failed you, exposing your or your children to something that you did not want to see (or – less likely! – preventing access to something you think important). If you are clever, you can link this to one of the points of the terms of reference (below). If you are not, just say that you are addressing ‘any other matter’ (point ‘o’) – or that you find it all a bit complex but that you still want to say something. For it is important that our Senators have people’s real experiences to work with, and these often have some clout. It is then up to them to determine how laws and bureaucracies need to be adapted to address them.

If you do want to go into it in more detail, you don’t have to address every point. You can even just discuss one of the points raised that you have a particular concern about. Here are some of the Terms of Reference that may be of particular interest (and that you could address with a personal story of your experience):

(g)         the classification of films, including explicit sex or scenes of torture and degradation, sexual violence and nudity as R18+;

(i)           the application of the National Classification Scheme to music videos;

(k)          the effectiveness of the National Classification Scheme in preventing the sexualisation of children and the objectification of women in all media, including advertising;

(m)        the effectiveness of the National Classification Scheme in dealing with new technologies and new media, including mobile phone applications, which have the capacity to deliver content to children, young people and adults;

(o)         any other matter, with the exception of the introduction of a R18+ classification for computer games which has been the subject of a current consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department.

You will note that many of the Terms of Reference refer to the National Classification Scheme. Information about this Scheme is available at:

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Classificationpolicy_NationalClassificationScheme.

Even though the wording of the inquiry is very technical, a submission could be as simple as a brief paragraph explaining about an experience you have had with our classification system, such as:

-          Describing a time where the given classification was inappropriate (for example, a movie rated PG that was not appropriate for your child to watch with you);

-          Describing a situation where you were uncomfortable with the content that could be viewed in a particular context (for example, an inappropriate ad on the radio at a time school-aged children would be listening, or a billboard on the side of a busy road near a school, or clothing lines sold in stores); or

-          Outlining your concerns over new technologies that are not being adequately covered by the classification scheme (for example, being able to easily access pornographic games and material on mobile phone handsets).

-          Outlining any concerns over how easy or clear it is the challenge or question the content of public media.

Bear in mind that our society has a preoccupation with ‘evidence based policy’. The principle of basing policies on evidence is very important. But in this case, it is notoriously hard to decide what constitutes ‘evidence of harm’. In the absence of any clear evidence of harm, policy tends to drift in the most liberal direction possible. It might be worth challenging this cavalier attitude. Perhaps ‘wisdom’ is as important as clear ‘evidence’: if we have a hunch that some explicit messages are corrosive, they are hunches worth listening to. This kind of approach amplifies the need for you to send the Senators your own experiences.

How to make a submission

The committee has invited written submissions to the inquiry by 4 March 2011. Submissions can be emailed to legcon.sec@aph.gov.au, or sent to:

Committee Secretary

Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee

PO Box 6100

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Australia

All submissions must include the author’s full name, phone number and postal address on a separate covering letter or email. As always, it’s important to be polite, factual and brief.

While writing a submission like this can often be time consuming and feel pointless, submissions from concerned community members hold a lot of weight, and will always be properly considered by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (a committee of the Senate responsible for the inquiry).

-          Andrew Cameron and Rebecca Belzer

for the Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney

Classification inquiry - Terms of Reference

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee is inquiring into the Australian film and literature classification scheme, with particular reference to:

a)       the use of serial classifications for publications;

b)      the desirability of national standards for the display of restricted publications and films;

c)       the enforcement system, including call-in notices, referrals to state and territory law enforcement agencies and follow-up of such referrals;

d)      the interaction between the National Classification Scheme and customs regulations;

e)       the application of the National Classification Scheme to works of art and the role or artistic merit in classification decisions;

f)        the impact of X18+ films, including their role in the sexual abuse of children;

g)       the classification of films, including explicit sex or scenes of torture and degradation, sexual violence and nudity as R18+;

h)      the possibility of including outdoor advertising, such as billboards, in the National Classification Scheme;

i)        the application of the National Classification Scheme to music videos;

j)        the effectiveness of the ‘ARIA/AMRA Labelling Code of Practice for Recorded Music Product Containing Potentially Offensive Lyrics and/or Themes’;

k)      the effectiveness of the National Classification Scheme in preventing the sexualisation of children and the objectification of women in all media, including advertising;

l)        the interaction between the National Classification Scheme and the role of the Australian Communications and Media Authority in supervising broadcast standards for television and Internet content;

m)    the effectiveness of the National Classification Scheme in dealing with new technologies and new media, including mobile phone applications, which have the capacity to deliver content to children, young people and adults;

n)      the Government’s reviews of the Refused Classification (RC) category; and

o)      any other matter, with the exception of the introduction of a R18+ classification for computer games which has been the subject of a current consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department.

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at:http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

Conditions of use

1. You may forward this paper to others, as long as you forward it in full.

2. You may freely publish it (e.g. in a church newspaper) as long as it is published in full, not for profit, and including the ‘Note’ paragraph. (You don’t have to include these ‘conditions’.)

3. Media and academic publishers should cite this paper according to their professional standards. We would appreciate audiences being directed to www.sie.org.au.

4. Not-for-profit publishers may use the ideas in this paper without acknowledgement; but if quoting it directly, please cite title, author(s), and the web link www.sie.org.au.

5. Permission may be given for use in publications for profit. Please send details of your proposal to social.issues@moore.edu.au.

Social Issues briefing #088, 15/12/2010.

Bills attempting to legalise euthanasia have failed to pass in Western Australia and South Australia, and a similar Bill has not yet proceeded in NSW. This is a clear signal that, contrary to the figures quoted by those in favour of euthanasia, many Australians are not comfortable with the notion of doctors assisting their patients to die, regardless of the so called ‘safeguards’.

In Western Australia, the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2010 was defeated by 24 votes to 11 on 22 September 2010. A similar bill in South Australia was also defeated.

In NSW, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2010 to legalize voluntary euthanasia in NSW, was not debated in the NSW Legislative Council. There will not be another opportunity to debate the bill prior to the election on 26 March 2011. Ms Cate Faehrmann, who introduced the NSW Bill, conceded on 25 November 2010 that the bill would not be able to be passed by the current parliament, but signalled her intention to bring it again to the next parliament as the opportunity arises.

In the Senate of the Australian Parliament, the Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia) Bill 2010 was introduced by Senator Bob Brown. This Bill was seeking to overturn the prohibition on legalizing voluntary euthanasia in the Northern Territory, the ACT and Norfolk Island. This Bill has not yet been properly debated or voted on, although that may occur sometime in the new year.

Many politicians consider this Bill as an issue of territory rights and self-determination, rather than primarily about euthanasia. It is technically correct that this Bill affects the processes of governance in the Territories. In substance though, it is overtly motivated by the desire for euthanasia to become law in the Territories. This outcome is extremely concerning for Christians and others who oppose euthanasia, as it is easily possible to imagine a scenario where euthanasia becomes legal in the ACT.

It is reasonable to assume that if euthanasia became legal in any state or territory in Australia, similar legislation would have to be passed federally or in all other states, in order to avoid ‘death tourism’ – travel by euthanasia candidates to the places where it is legal.

Some thoughts on our attempts to engage with euthanasia

When Ms Faehrmann conceded that the NSW bill would not be debated, she referred to the ‘rigid ideology’ of those who oppose euthanasia:

‘It seems to me that rigid ideology drives the position of some in this debate, rather than a willingness to consider, debate and talk through public policy outcomes… We should not be scared of making our own laws [on euthanasia] even if other jurisdictions have chosen to do it slightly differently. But it is that idea that goes to the heart of the anti-voluntary euthanasia campaign. It is based on a philosophy that the views of one group in society should be imposed on all’ (emphasis ours).

The argument that conservatives seek to ‘impose their views on others’ is frequently raised when controversial changes are proposed and debated. Of course, all legal changes ‘impose’ something on someone.

But Ms Faehrmann’s frustration is understandable. She thinks it straightforward that people should be given what they want, when they want it. On this issue, she is an individualist. Supporting everyone’s right to choose sounds attractive, and proponents of euthanasia cannot understand why we resist such choice in this area.

However as a representative of the Greens party, she would willingly impose her values on others if they were logging, killing whales, or dumping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – and often quite rightly so. In these cases, she would have a deep regard for our common life together. A lot of what we do cannot be reduced to individual wants and choices. Those who oppose euthanasia think that the way we treat each other at the end of life is precisely such an area.

Christian opposition to euthanasia arises from a desire to find the best way to care for those around us. In the Bible, Jesus models an attitude of concern for our neighbour, over and above concern for ourselves. Sometimes, there is nothing wrong with choosing what we each like. But society also needs networks of relationships and love. The care (and funding for care) that we give to each other at the end of life is such a delicate network of care. To propel individual choice to the centre of this care will corrode and eventually destroy it.

If voluntary euthanasia caused even one person to feel isolated, pressured and ultimately coerced into giving up their life, we have begun to stop caring. So, we continue to gently and lovingly explain that rather than a society where individuals stand on their ‘rights’, we want a society that cares for each other.

Where to from here?

It can be disconcerting to take a stand on a political issue, by writing a letter to a politician or signing a petition against euthanasia, then to be left wondering about what happened. Hopefully, you can see that if you took some action, your efforts were not in vain.

We want to thank those who gave some time to this political debate. In NSW, petitions against euthanasia were tabled in the NSW Legislative Council on 10 out of 15 possible sitting days in October, November and December. We should not underestimate the significance of petitions, letters and visits to political representatives. These probably did have some effect on the outcomes in WA, SA and NSW. The Federal outcome is yet to be determined.

It is likely that this issue will arise again in 2011, both at Commonwealth and State levels. It is important not to be disheartened by these ongoing attempts to legalize the killing of the sick. We want to show an alternative way. We don’t have to abandon others in their sometimes desperate final days. There are better ways to help them.

-          Rebecca Belzer

(for the Social Issues Executive,

Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Sources/further reading

Andrew Cameron, ‘Euthanazing fear: why it won’t work’, Social Issues briefing #087, 14/12/2010, http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/euthanizing_fear_why_it_wont_work/

Cate Faehrmann, ‘Euthanasia’, Adjournment Speech to NSW Legislative Council, 25 Nov 2010, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20101125058

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at:

http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

Conditions of use

1. You may forward this paper to others, as long as you forward it in full.

2. You may freely publish it (e.g. in a church newspaper) as long as it is published in full, not for profit, and including the ‘Note’ paragraph. (You don’t have to include these ‘conditions’.)

3. Media and academic publishers should cite this paper according to their professional standards. We would appreciate audiences being directed to www.sie.org.au.

4. Not-for-profit publishers may use the ideas in this paper without acknowledgement; but if quoting it directly, please cite title, author(s), and the web link www.sie.org.au.

5. Permission may be given for use in publications for profit. Please send details of your proposal to social.issues@moore.edu.au.

Euthanasia is not a treatment for despair and loneliness. Provision of holistic care by a skilled interdisciplinary team of health professionals enables patients and families to acknowledge and attend to distress within themselves and their relationships. The time before death offers unique opportunities for psycho-spiritual growth and allows for healing even without a cure. … Voluntary euthanasia … would not have assisted us in our care for our patients.

– Thirteen West Australian palliative care specialists

As proposals for voluntary euthanasia gain momentum, a miasma of fear surrounds them – fear of pain; fear of decline; fear of dependence; fear of abandonment; fear of death. Our community is in slavery to this fear of death, yet seems to believe that we can bypass, short-circuit and cheat these fears by taking a pill. Many Christians are deeply saddened that so many do not know the One who came to ‘destroy the one holding the power of death’ and to ‘free those who were held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death.’ (Heb. 2:14–15 … words not just about meeting God, but written and heard by those who knew the suffering, pain and decline of death much more intimately than do we.)

Such fear is also tragically ignorant of current end-of-life care practices in modern Australia.

First: many think laws for voluntary euthanasia are for burdensome treatments to be stopped, or for life-support to be switched off, when people are about to die. But these are already best-practice: good end of life care does not keep people lingering on endlessly. The N.S.W. Department of Health, for example, has published excellent end-of-life guidelines: no life is unnecessarily prolonged, no one is subjected to burdensome or futile treatments, and people are allowed to die with great dignity.

As journalist Paul Kelly puts it, ‘most people think that turning off life-support machines and discontinuing life-preserving treatment is euthanasia. In fact, this is nothing to do with euthanasia. Indeed, it is the precise opposite of euthanasia. If a family turns off a life-support machine, the patient dies because of their illness, not because of the doctor. But if the doctor gives a lethal injection, then the patient is killed. This is a fine yet critical distinction.’ (The pro-euthanasia lobby offers clever philosophical arguments to erase this distinction. They trade on the grey-zone between death and life. But these arguments are sophistry: we do something different when we end a life, as compared to waiting on an unpreventable death.)

Second: thousands of people around the country are working long and hard, right now, to make people comfortable and to help them die well. We call this ‘palliative care’. But in a society so shielded from death, most of us know nothing about it. In the recent Western Australian debate, thirteen palliative care specialists wrote ‘We share many of the goals of those who support euthanasia,’ they wrote, meaning that they agree when patients want to cease pointless treatments, or want to die well at home. These specialists can then control symptoms sometimes by use of ‘deep sedation’ that ‘is both ethical and legal.’

They also observe that contrary to popular opinion, people request death mainly due to despair and loneliness, not pain. ‘Euthanasia is not a treatment for despair and loneliness.’ They write beautifully of what they do instead. ‘Provision of holistic care by a skilled interdisciplinary team of health professionals enables patients and families to acknowledge and attend to distress within themselves and their relationships. The time before death offers unique opportunities for psycho-spiritual growth and allows for healing even without a cure.’ They conclude that a law enabling voluntary euthanasia ‘would not have assisted us in care for our patients.’ These people are experts on dying. Their judgment deserves our trust.

But a euthanizing culture will eventually sweep away infrastructures like this. The option to euthanize will corrode political will to continue funding end-of-life care, let alone to increase it (as is needed). It will erode funding for research and provision of pain management, mental health initiatives and good aged care. The willingness to euthanize will eventually make it become ‘irresponsible’ for anyone to want any kind of taxpayer-funded care. We will not see these effects next year, or in ten years. But if voluntary euthanasia is legalized, those of us dying in forty years will die in a very different environment than our parents and grandparents did. Australia really will become a fearful place to die.

To address these concerns, the Social Issues Executive has put a motion before the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, which is currently in session. It may be amended after discussion, but now reads as follows:

This Synod, in response to the Greens’ notice of motion to introduce into the NSW Parliament a Bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia and the Greens’ Bill in Federal Parliament to overturn Commonwealth prohibitions against euthanasia legislation in the Territories –
1.     notes that when adequate palliative care, symptom control and psychosocial support is available and accessible, only a tiny minority of those accessing such support express a preference for euthanasia;
2.     observes that the outcome of legalised voluntary euthanasia will include the insertion of mistrust into patient-carer and patient-relative relationships, a creeping expansion of candidates for euthanasia, and reduced funding for terminal care;
3.     notes that recent reports of community support for euthanasia fail adequately to distinguish the deliberate killing of people from the morally acceptable practice of not prolonging life with burdensome treatment; and
4.     notes that most supporters for euthanasia are young and healthy, but that euthanasia legislation is not well supported among people with disability and by people who are old, infirm or vulnerable.

Accordingly, this Synod –
(a) reaffirms that all human life is precious in God’s sight, and that the Bible’s clear prohibition of killing innocent humans has the positive effect of creating communities that love and care for others at their weakest and move vulnerable;
(b) reiterates its opposition to voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide;
(c)  calls upon the Premier and the Prime Minister to oppose these initiatives;
(d) calls on the NSW State and Federal parliamentarians to request referral of these bills to parliamentary committees, and to inform themselves of the alternatives to euthanasia and of its negative consequences in jurisdictions that have adopted it; and
(e) calls on these governments to increase funding to pain management and palliative care services.

For those around Sydney, the SIE is also organising the following meeting at Moore College. The panel of presenters will be Dr Megan Best, Andrew Ford, Michael Jensen and Karin Sowada, chaired by Andrew Cameron. We will advocate a definite position against proposals for voluntary euthanasia, but there will be time for questions, clarification and some discussion.

Voluntary euthanasia: why it sounds good but goes bad.

7.45 for 8.00pm to 9.30pm, Tuesday 26th October 2010
Knox Lecture Theatre, Moore Theological College
15 King Street, Newtown

Parking is limited; please consider car-pooling;
or use one of these buses (all require pre-paid tickets) –
MetroBus 30 from George St, City South; or any 422 – 428 bus
from Circular Quay Stand A, Castlereagh St City, or Central Stand A.

Alight at Darlington (the stop after the Sydney Uni overbridge and Wentworth Building). As soon as bus leaves Sydney Uni Wentworth Building, press button to stop at next stop (outside Darlington Conference Centre). Walk to traffic lights (Sydney Uni Regiment) and cross; turn left; proceed past another bus shelter and the red brick Moore College building on your right. Entry to 15 King St is further along King St, just beyond a short row of terrace houses, on your right.

-          Andrew Cameron
(for the Social Issues Executive,
Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Sources/further reading

Thirteen palliative care specialists, ‘Why we will not kill our patients,’ The West Australian, 25/10/2010, p. 46.

Margaret O'Connor (President of Palliative Care Australia), ‘Care allows a dignified death,’ The Australian, 12/10/2010, p. 12.
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/care-allows-a-dignified-death/story-e6frg6zo-1225937348840

Andrew Cameron, ‘Euthanasia question needs wider discussion,’ SMH, 8/10/2010. www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/euthanasia-question-needs-wider-discussion-20101007-169kx.html

Angela Shanahan, ‘Right-to-die polls no basis for radical change,’ The Australian, 2/10/2010.
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/right-to-die-polls-no-basis-for-radical-change/story-e6frg6zo-1225932745264

Niki Savva, ‘Fight for life to the last breath,’ The Australian, 5/10/2010.
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/fight-for-life-to-the-last-breath/story-e6frg6zo-1225934039989

Michael Jensen, ‘Who is euthanasia really for? A letter from a loving son.’ ThePunch.com 27/9/2010. www.thepunch.com.au/articles/who-is-euthanasia-really-for-a-letter-from-a-loving-son

Paul Kelly, ‘Brown's euthanasia bill a perilous test for Gillard,’ The Australian 29/9/2010.
www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/browns-euthanasia-bill-a-perilous-test-for-gillard/story-e6frgd0x-1225931193178

Andrew Cameron et. al., ‘Euthanasia and the abandonment of life,’ Social Issues briefing #057, 02/02/2007. www.sie.org.au/briefings/euthanasia_and_the_abandonment_of_life

'We are not convinced that backing down is the right thing … Islam is of the Devil.'
- Pastor Terry Jones as at Sept. 8^th; quoted by Reuters

'For although I am free from all people, I have made myself a slave to all, in order to win more people. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win Jews … To the weak I became weak, in order to win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I may by all means save some.'
- The apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 9:19–22, HCSB

'We have agreed to cancel our event on Saturday. Americans don’t want the mosque there and of course Muslims don’t want us to burn Korans.'
- Pastor Terry Jones as at Sept. 10^th; quoted by SMH

This briefing began life as a statement against Pastor Terry Jones' planned September 11 Koran-burning. He has now decided not to go ahead. Some elements of his reasoning are questionable, but his public re-evaluation deserves commendation. Despite Jones’ change of mind, the episode remains an interesting test-case in the ‘freedom’ of free speech, and in how Christians believe freedom should be used.

It would be hard to find anyone more convinced about Christianity than the apostle Paul. It would also be hard to find anyone more trenchant about the origins of other religious practices. For Paul, one ancient religious practice – the offering of food to an idol – is not quaintly misled. While denying that these idols have any real power, he insists that there is more going on than meets the eye: ‘what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God’ (1 Cor. 10:20, hcsb).

Indeed Paul is probably the source of Pastor Terry Jones’ view that ‘Islam is of the Devil’. For Paul, the best thing that has happened to the planet is the appearance of Jesus Christ. The permissions people give each other to ignore Jesus are frankly inexplicable. It must be, reasons Paul, that ‘the god of this age’ (the devil) ‘has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God’ (2 Cor. 4:4, NIV). Here Paul simply extends Jesus’ own teaching that a ‘father of lies’ is at work (John 8:44).

President Obama, Ban Ki-moon, General David Petraeus, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Indonesian Preseident Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and thousands of others have come down on this little Gainesville church. It is a group of people who disagree with the presuppositions of the arguments against them; who believe that Islam is mistaken and wrong; and who sought to protest Abdul Rauf’s proposed ‘Ground Zero’ mosque. The burning was to proceed as a constitutionally protected act of ‘free speech’.

Would Paul have attended? Once he would have. He was willing to become the impromptu cloak-room for the mob who stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58). At that time in his life, Paul thought Stephen every bit as wrong as Pastor Jones now finds Mohammed. And as we have seen, even after Paul was found by Jesus, he remained convinced that there is truth, there are lies, and that religions are not benign expressions of cultural diversity.

So: had Pastor Jones gone ahead, would Paul have attended? Without a shadow of doubt – no. If he may have done before meeting Jesus, he radically changes afterwards. The planned book-burning emerged from a miasma of angry revenge around the World Trade Centre attacks, and from the recent proposal to build a mosque nearby. It is hard not to be reminded of Paul’s post-Jesus kind of response. It is strikingly different:

'Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord.’ On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' – Rom. 12:18–21, NIV; quoting Deut. 32:35 and Prov. 25:21–22.

In a long and nuanced argument about the food and the idols (1 Cor. 8–10), Paul never affirms the idols nor the food practices surrounding them. Yet his conclusion is clear. ‘Give no offense to the Jews or the Greeks or the church of God, just as I also try to please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved’ (1 Cor. 10:32–33, HCSB).

In these and related arguments (e.g. Gal. 5, Rom. 14), Paul was the most extraordinary exponent of freedom. The U.S. First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech can indirectly be traced back to these very arguments. Those who think Islam is wrong have the freedom to say so, and should not resile from saying so. It is problematic that a degree of fear now prevents people from saying so. The liberal establishment that espouses liberality should not stifle careful dispute about religion, for the society that disputes carefully and well will be more tolerant than the one that does not.

But it does not follow that Christians should press free speech to its limit. ‘Muslims believe the Koran is the divine word of God, in letter and meaning,’ says Abdel-Moeti Bayoumi, a scholar at Al-Azhar University, Cairo. ‘If a human burns the revealed word of God, this would be considered the gravest crime for all Muslims.’ Journalist Mike Bernos reports that even Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who sparked Muslim outrage in 2006 with a drawing of the Prophet Mohammed, thought plans to burn the Koran went too far.

Paul would have argued intensely against the Muslim view of the word of God. Yet we have very good reason to think he would have opposed this act. Does Koran-burning help ‘win’ Muslims to Christ? No. Does it create a ‘stumbling block’ for them? Yes. Is it profoundly unhelpful to the kind of person that Paul repeatedly calls ‘the weak’? Absolutely. Paul’s approach to those who have not yet been found by Jesus has given the Christian church, at its best, habits and patterns of action and feeling called ‘gentleness’ and ‘love’. Paul demolishes arguments that oppose Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), but always seeks to ‘build up’ people. Christians and their pastors may, on occasion, have good reason to resist even a President. But we have no warrant to resist the clear teaching and practice of our Apostle.

The imam who is behind the planned Muslim centre at ‘Ground Zero’, Mr Abdul Rauf, now regrets proposing the plan. Yet he believes he cannot withdraw it, because of ‘headlines in the Muslim world … that Islam is under attack. And I’m less concerned about the radicals in America than I am about the radicals in the Muslim world.’ It seems, then, that many Muslims will not back down from giving offence, yet cannot take offence. Perhaps that is precisely because they have not heard and learnt of Jesus’ way. Even so, it does not follow that Christians respond in kind: like Jesus, we are not shaped and formed by the ways of those who oppose us.

-          Andrew Cameron
(for the Social Issues Executive,
Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Sources/Further Reading

‘Muslims: Koran Burning Threatens God's Word,’ Time.com, Sept. 08, 2010.
Online: http://tinyurl.com/Bayoumi.

Barbara Liston, ‘Florida pastor not backing down on Koran-burning,’ Reuters.com, Sept. 08, 2010.
Online: http://tinyurl.com/liston01.

Mike Bernos, ‘Koran burning will boost Al-Qaeda: Obama,’ AFP Sept. 08, 2010.
Online: http://tinyurl.com/bernos02.

Simon Mann, ‘Pastor cancels 9/11 Koran-burning plan,’ SMH Sept. 8, 2010.
Online: http://tinyurl.com/mann001.

www.sie.org.au (this site): see 'More on these topics', top-right of this page.

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at: http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

I give my personal in-principle support to this issue. For the record, my primary concern is what is in the best interests of children. Adoption provides permanence, stability and security that is important for children. I know of successful parenting and fostering by gay and lesbian couples. However, I am aware that there are very deeply held, divergent views on this issue …    - Premier Kristina Keneally

This briefing is for readers in NSW. On 24 June the Member for Sydney, Ms Clover Moore, introduced into the Legislative Assembly a Private Member's bill titled Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2010.

1. The Bill will permit same sex couples to be included as candidates for consideration to adopt an infant (an ‘unknown’ adoption).
2. It will also allow the same sex partner of the biological parent of a child to adopt the child (a ‘known’ adoption).
3. The Bill does not provide any exemption provisions for Christian adoption agencies.

This Bill is the third initiative in five years for the amendment of NSW adoption law to allow adoption by same sex couples. The SIE has made submissions to a 2006 Department of Community Services enquiry, and to a 2009 Law and Justice Committee enquiry.

The recent Law and Justice Committee enquiry (see link below) recommended for changes to the law, by the narrowest of margins. It also recommended that provisions be made for the exemption of Christian adoption agencies. The current bill ignores this recommendation.

In a nutshell, our position has been that:

1. No matter how well functioning a same sex couple, adoption by them deprives an infant the opportunity either to be ‘fathered’ or ‘mothered’. Of course many children now experience no ‘fathering’ or ‘mothering’. But when the State is charged to provide optimal care for an infant, its officers should presume, conservatively, that optimal care includes being well-fathered and well-mothered.
2. For children whose biological parent is now in a same sex relationship, we do recognise that the new partner should be supported in their co-care of the child. However, other arrangements than adoption can be strengthened to achieve that end. The inclusion of these children’s needs under the general category of ‘adoption’, muddies the waters of ‘unknown’ infant adoption. Moore’s changes deliberately conflate the very different considerations of ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ adoption.
3. If the law is changed, Christian organisations should not be forced to act against their best judgment of a child’s best interests.

Everyone – the Premier, Clover Moore and the SIE – all now speak in terms of ‘a child’s best interests’. The nub of the argument is over whether children need a women and a man among their main carers. We know that not all children have such care, and we do want them to be well-cared for by the carers they know. But when the State is charged to supply care, we think that a loving, stable married man and women are a kid’s best shot. It is not homophobic simply to ask the State to continue providing infants with a loving man and women wherever possible.

The Bill will be debated once State Parliament resumes on 31 August 2010. The Premier has announced that she will allow a conscience vote.

If you also think that the Bill is well-intentioned but mistaken, a conscience vote means that you need to see your local State Member (not your Federal member!!) and politely alert them to the issues. Our central denominational officers have no easy method to address a conscience vote. If you think this change is a mistake, it now boils down to your engagement with a local member. It is over to you, to get your local members to think through their position. Here are some resources to guide you:

• The 2009 Standing Committee on Law and Justice Report: Adoption by same-sex couples: http://tinyurl.com/SSA-report.
• A helpful summary of the issues by Greg Donelly, who participated in Committee that prepared the Report: http://tinyurl.com/gregdcomment .
• Twelve reasons why the adoption act should not be changed, provided by Anglicare Sydney, and available by permission at www.sie.org.au under ‘Reports’.
• The ‘excursus’ (and link) below: ‘Does gender matter?’

To communicate with your local Sate member:

1. Use the tool provided by the NSW branch of the Australian Christian Lobby at www.kidsrightscount.org.au to email your local member. (The ‘Contact your MP!’ link goes to another site)
2. Or, first find your electorate here: http://tinyurl.com/find-NSW-electorate
   then find your member here: http://tinyurl.com/find-NSW-member
   then call for an appointment.
3. You might even consider printing the Adoption by same-sex couples report and even getting it bound at an instant printer. Read it and highlight a few short sections to show to your MP. Give it to your MP, and ask him or her to make time to read the report before voting.
4. Whatever you do, outline your concerns politely and  briefly. Do not get into red herrings. The main concern is whether the optimal experience for children includes a mother and a father.

That’s it. It’s over to you.

-          Andrew Cameron
(for the Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Excursus: Does gender matter?

It is worth stepping back from this current bill to consider some wider attitudes about the relevance of gender difference.

To date, adoption policy has retained the relevance of gender difference on the hunch that children should ideally have an experience both of mothering and fathering. It has followed that same-sex couples are not accepted as candidate parents for ‘unknown’ infant adoptions, on the presumption that it is not about the ‘rights’ of these people to have a child, but that it is about what is in the best interests of the child.

But the needs of children parented by (usually) a biological mother and her new lesbian partner generate the proposal for so-called ‘known’ adoption by the same-sex partner of the child’s biological parent. Like all adoptions, this proposal is meant as a kind of retrieval, because these kids do need the care of those known to them whom they trust. So it is argued that adoption law should be extended to these cases.

These cases have been conflated with the cases of ‘unknown’ infant adoption, which are conceptually quite different. But after this conflation, the overall argument is now put that no child necessarily needs the experience of both mothering and fathering. By studying the outcomes of children already parented by same-sex couples, and by asserting that these kids are fine, we are told to change our long-held hunch that a mother and a father matters. This, we are told, is now an outdated a prejudice, and children will be expected to adapt to care arrangements that suit a new adult interpretation of gender.

The studies in this area are controversial. Even pro-gay researchers admit that research is distorted by each researcher’s ‘family values’, whether conservative or progressive. The SIE made this point as clearly as we could in a submission to the 2006 review of the NSW Adoption Act: http://tinyurl.com/SIE2006sub (or go to ‘Reports’ at www.sie.org.au). Some of its points are no longer relevant, but the bulk of the argument remains directly relevant.

The hunch that gender difference is somehow important, has also been the sole remaining secular reason to retain marriage as a gender complementary institution. We are living through a twin-pronged assault on the relevance of gender difference: in parallel to our local adoption debate, a recent Californian judicial ruling has effectively declared that we are now beyond gender as a relevant consideration in all our social arrangements, marriage included. (See Michael A. Lindenberger, ‘Why California's Gay-Marriage Ban Was Upended’, Time.com 5 August 2010, http://tinyurl.com/timegmban.)

Christians simply ask our neighbours – is it really true that our gender differences matter so little? And is it safe to conclude that gender difference is irrelevant in our caring relationships with children? Those who want to minimize this differentiator answer ‘it matters little; we’re going ahead’. The response we propose is a socially orthodox argument: that in a high-stakes decision, and when it is very hard to prove that a change will be beneficial or not deleterious, there is nothing wrong with doing as we have always done. Socially orthodox arguments are not popular, but not necessarily untrue. This kind of position relies upon the presumption that the status quo is not doing enough damage to warrant a change. It also places a high burden of proof upon those who propose the change.

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

In 2009, the Synod of the Diocese passed a resolution concerning people with disability. It requested parishes and organizations in the Diocese to develop and implement a plan to remove obstacles that prevent people with disability from hearing the gospel and sharing in Christian fellowship. (The resolution appears in full below).

This request seems very hard. Ministry staff are so busy just keeping a church healthy. The idea of them coordinating something new in this area can seem completely daunting to them. But in partnership with the Diocesan Secretariat, the SIE is trying to make it easier for churches to think about making some changes.

We are hoping it might even become enjoyable. For what a glorious adornment of the gospel it would be, if people with disability found their local church to be an oasis in an otherwise hard world. ‘Driving by a church, a ramp is a welcome mat,’ said a wheelchair user. All churches can be like that.

Over the next few days, rectors in the Diocese of Sydney will receive a request to participate in an online questionnaire. It asks a raft of questions about how accessible your church property and practices are for people with disability, and ranges across several areas. Its purpose is simple: we want to take a ‘snapshot’ of what Sydney Anglican churches are currently like for people with disability. We would love the 2010 Synod to hear how churches are changing in this area! It all begins with these few questions.

If you attend an Anglican church in Sydney, you might like to offer to help your Rector complete this questionnaire. It can be completed by any church member who knows about their parish’s physical facilities, methods of communication and main programs. Your rector might prefer to do it himself; your church wardens, who look after church plant and equipment, might be better placed to do it; but it can do no harm to offer.

Whoever answers it might find themselves answering ‘no’ a lot. But we don’t want anyone to feel guilty or downhearted, and we are not trying to make anyone squirm. Some fixes may be easier than everybody thinks. The questionnaire also offers the opportunity for a free consultation to help churches identify the simplest and best changes, to make your church into that oasis. (The closing date for the questionnaire is Friday 2 July 2010.)

We also want to alert you to these two other ways you can rethink your church’s approach to people with disability.

• An amazing conference will take place in Drummoyne, NSW, on July 5–9:
  Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for the Church: Ministering with People with Disabilities –
  the Inclusion of the Excluded. Several speakers will address a variety of theoretical and practical considerations (For further information, call (02) 9819 8888, email jim.harrison@wi.edu.au or visit www.wi.edu.au.)

• At Synod, we introduced the Luke14 initiative. It can help you with good Bible study material and with tips on how to change a church. Check it out: www.luke14.cbm.org.au

One final point. There is not some discrete class called ‘the disabled’, and this initiative is not about how ‘we’ can help ‘them’. Jesus’ churches do not work that way. There are only people, each of whom need Jesus to save us and change us. People with disability simply want the opportunity to be a member of a church, to learn with you, and to contribute their gifts and skills for building others up.

Let’s begin to make that possible, for each of them.

-          Andrew Cameron (for the Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Sydney Anglican Synod Resolution 34/09: People with a disability

Synod, mindful that meeting together in Christ, we learn of receiving our bodies as given by God; we continue to discover practices of love towards all people in their particular circumstances; we discern with them how to ‘carry each other’s burdens’ (Gal. 6:2); and we each learn together how to ‘carry our own load’ (Gal 6:5), therefore –

(a)      recognises that for people with disabilities, their families and carers, daily life can be practically, financially, socially and emotionally more difficult than it is for most people,

(b)      notes that there are many obstacles for people with disabilities, their families and carers, which prevent them hearing the gospel and sharing in Christian fellowship, which we have not always considered,

(c)      requests that all parishes and organisations in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church develop and implement a plan to remove those obstacles that currently prevent people affected by disability from hearing the gospel and sharing in Christian fellowship, and

(d)      requests Sydney Anglicans and the Diocese in particular to continue to advocate for Government policy that promotes the wellbeing and interests of people with disabilities and their families and carers.

Links:

• Social Issues briefing #083, ‘Who has a disability?’ Online: http://www.sie.sydney.anglican.asn.au/briefings/who_has_a_disability
• Luke 14 Resources for Disability Inclusive Christian Communities (CBM Australia)
  www.Luke14.cbm.org.au. (Also follow the link to their free resources.)

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

Conditions of use:

1. You may forward this paper to others, as long as you forward it in full.

2. You may freely publish it (e.g. in a church newspaper) as long as it is published in full, not for profit, and including the ‘Note’ paragraph. (You don’t have to include these ‘conditions’.)

3. Media and academic publishers should cite this paper according to their professional standards. We would appreciate audiences being directed to www.sie.org.au.

4. Not-for-profit publishers may use the ideas in this paper without acknowledgement; but if quoting it directly, please cite title, authors, and the web link www.sie.org.au.

5. Permission may be given for use in publications for profit. Please send details of your proposal to andrew.cameron@moore.edu.au.

‘Driving by a church, a ramp is a welcome mat.’ (Wheelchair user)

Not so long ago, I visited an Anglican church in Sydney’s northwest. As visiting speaker for the day I was shown around and invited to their communal dinner.

I was interested to meet several ‘disabled’ people there. (I will return to those inverted commas later.) They had various difficulties I do not normally see, and needed some help; but participating in the dinner they spoke and were spoken to as naturally as anyone else. Their wheelchairs were part of the furniture, like my own chair. So were the ramps and rails throughout the building. It was church as usual—just another meeting of God’s people.

I was surprised in three ways by this scenario. First, it was so unremarkable. These members were not regarded awkwardly. They were not patronised. No one spoke at them loudly. They were folk at church, like me. Second, I was surprised (and annoyed) at my surprise. Why did I notice them so much, and why was the normalcy of the scene so interesting to me? Clearly, there was something odd in my perception, and in my experience of church until then.

My third surprise? I will return to that when I get to those inverted commas ...

‘I do not expect to get access to the pyramids or Uluru, but I do want to get into all the library and all of the community centre.’

‘The gym offered a separate class for kids with disabilities. I asked one of the teachers whether it would be possible for my daughter to attend one of the mainstream classes. She frowned and looked concerned, and said that was why they created the separate class. I said she was perfectly capable of joining in with the other girls. She said “well that’s OK for your daughter but if we let her in we will have to let everyone else in…”’

These excerpts are from submissions to Shut Out: the experience of people with disabilities and their families in Australia. This report arose from a government commissioned consultation on the lived experiences of people with disabilities. More than 2,500 people attended consultations around the country to tell their stories, and over 750 submissions were received.

Reading it arouses anger. Enormous barriers still prevent many people from participating in community life. People with disabilities do not enjoy full participation in society—but not just because of the physical aspect of their disability. The absence of ramps, rails and appropriate toilets is not the only problem. The main problem is the failure to perceive and accept these people as people.

After the Shut Out report, there are growing calls (led by the Hon. Bill Shorten) for a National Disability Insurance Scheme (www.ndis.org.au). Such a scheme would function along the lines of Medicare: compulsory contributions from all would enable anyone who has or acquires a serious disability to be financially assisted. Such a scheme would better enable those with disability to find solutions, rather than being at the mercy of the current ad-hoc, patchy and inadequate arrangements.

But an insurance scheme won’t fix everything. It cannot change community attitudes. Churches are usually characterized as welcoming and caring places, and many churches like the Anglican church mentioned above are oases of sorts. But unfortunately, many more church communities and church spaces are not yet very inclusive, and many with disabilities are inadvertently ‘shut out’ of church life. In Australia today, twenty percent of people are living with a disability of some kind. But think about your own church: does the number of people there with a disability reflect that wider figure?

‘For many years people with disabilities found themselves shut in—hidden away in large institutions. Now, many people with disabilities find themselves shut out—shut out of buildings, homes, schools, businesses, sports and community groups. They find themselves shut out of our way of life.’ [- from the report.]

The Anglican Church in Sydney is now committed to connecting with the many different people around us. Those with disability are one such group, but it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out why so few of this unseen group are found in churches.

It can be physically too hard to get to church, or to get into the building or the toilets. The format of services can be difficult for someone with chronic pain, or with a visual or hearing impairment. Small group meetings are impossible for families who have a family member with an intellectual disability or behavioural problems. Embarrassment keeps people away from church; or when they come, some feel superficially accepted but never really integrated into church life. An unintended message heard by people with a disability is that they ought to be grateful for our help, or for ‘accommodating’ them in some special way.

Admitting these problems can be difficult, and we can find ourselves responding with guilt, hopelessness and even some anger at having to face these things. Overstressed clergy groan inwardly at having to address yet another aspect of church life. Wardens shake their heads at the compliance issues, the monetary cost, and the endless hassle of pushing through changes to church plant and equipment. The rest of us quake inwardly at our clumsy responses to disabilities.

Nevertheless, Jesus himself seems to feel quite strongly about this matter. Triggered by the local religion’s contempt for a disabled man, Jesus erupts into a series of parables that throw the boundaries way beyond that man’s particular case.

‘When you give a lunch or a dinner, don't invite your friends, your brothers, your relatives, or your rich neighbors, because they might invite you back, and you would be repaid. On the contrary, when you host a banquet, invite those who are poor, maimed, lame, or blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’ [Luke 14:12-14, csb]

His confronting language about ‘repayment’ points to how seriously God expects us to include the vulnerable and the frail, as people. Jesus utterly subverts our standard ways of seeing people, as if we matter in virtue of our ‘productivity’, our ‘social skills’ or our ‘success’. God will have no part of those who only associate on such terms. ‘When you give a lunch or a dinner, don’t invite your friends, your brothers, your relatives, or your rich neighbors’—Jesus hosts no ‘homogenous unit’ banquets, and ‘pro-life’ churches have no choice other than to follow him in this.

For churches are already full of the ‘disabled’—if only we could see that. This was my third surprise: why did I think of those others as any more ‘disabled’ than I? I will also face ill health, accident, old age; one day I will need care; and more importantly, my ‘productivity’, ‘social skill’ and ‘success’ mean nothing as I stand before God in need of salvation. My functional body masks my broken heart and my lost soul. Breaking bread alongside those with visible disability, I learnt with them what God always knows: that we are all utterly dependent upon him, through the death of his Son for a totally ‘disabled’ humanity. Because and only because of him, churches are communities of broken people who know the hope of eternity. Churches are not service providers, or social clubs. They are people in relationship with God, and with each other in Christ.

As I write, the annual Synod of the Anglican Diocese is in session. On the Synod’s agenda is an initiative to enable churches to start, or start again, at including everyone. Delegates will be introduced to and given free material from a magnificently helpful group. They have put together a set of Luke 14 resources designed to enable ‘Disability Inclusive Christian Communities’. The writers of this material have literally trawled the globe for the best of the best, to help churches in the following ways:

• Church Wardens—those practical men and women in Anglican churches who just want to know what to do next—will be delighted with the Accessible Church Manual on how to fix church buildings. It includes all the latest Australian Standards guidelines and expectations; it shows the exact slope needed on a ramp, the exact dimensions needed in a toilet, and everything practical that rectors and ministry staff can only marvel in wonder at.
• Ministers—those thoughtful shepherds who seek change in how we believe, think, feel and live—will be assisted by Church Bar None, a set of Bible studies with well-produced DVD visuals that constructively and helpfully edge people into the Bible’s account of disability. (Those trained at a certain college where this writer works tend not to believe that pre-prepared Bible studies can be useful. I promise: this material is an exception.) The material can be tailored for a particular church; there is a wealth of helpful input here.
• Members—those faithful people who come regularly and want to help but often don’t know how—will find a wealth of tips and tactics, such as the list of Welcomer’s Tips for people with various kinds of disability.  This material will lead us out of our awkwardness and clumsiness, into sensible ways of receiving others as people like us. It will show us how to ‘connect’ with disabled others before, during and after church.

For if we are all ‘disabled’, then maybe the physically disabled have a thing or two to teach us about following Jesus. Synod will see Table Talk, a six-minute video profiling members of churches across the land. They move us to tears, and fill us with hope. One of them, Steven, strikes the viewer as pretty different at first. But we learn of his ‘bizarre’ sense of humour; we quickly pick up how to hear his speech; then he looks to camera and says, ‘I offer what everyone else has to offer: themselves.’

Andrew Cameron
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

Links:

• Luke 14 Resources for Disability Inclusive Christian Communities (CBM Australia)
  www.Luke14.cbm.org.au. (Also follow the link to their free resources.)
• ‘Shut Out’: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/disability/pubs/policy/community_consult/Documents/NDS_report.pdf
• Catriona Corbett, ‘Caring for our disabled children’: www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/relationships/caring_for_our_disabled_children
• National Disability Insurance Scheme: www.ndis.org.au

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply.

To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues .

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.

– Jesus (Luke 4:18-19)

This may surprise you – but many consider it a bit cheeky to use Luke 4:18 in a discussion about prisoners.

But let us dream a crazy dream for a moment. Wouldn’t it be amazing if in jails across Australia, every prisoner could be freed in Jesus’ way? Imagine them all discovering ‘the Lord’s favour’. Imagine them becoming ‘free’ in the deepest sense: free of what drove them to crime; free to be loved by God; freed in turn to love him and to serve others. Imagine them finding the kind of inner freedom that meant they did not need to be jailed any more.

It is cheeky, though, to borrow Jesus’ words because the kinds of ‘prisoner’ he spoke of were not exactly the same as modern prisoners. He spoke of people like John the Baptist – those thrown into dungeons by despots who did not like to be challenged. In contrast, we imprison people in an attempt to justly punish them for crime. Our prisons were invented as an attempt to punish more mercifully than in days past (when people were flogged, deported, or killed).

So technically, prisoners in the New Testament are not quite the same as ours. When the author to the Hebrews says ‘Remember the prisoners, as though you were in prison with them, and the mistreated, as though you yourselves were suffering bodily,’ (Heb. 13:3), these people were likely imprisoned because their talk about Jesus inconvenienced someone (e.g. Acts 16:2-24; Rom. 16:7; Col. 4:3; 2 Tim. 1:8). They were more like what we would call ‘political prisoners’ – probably including even those prisoners Jesus mentions in his famously hard word about failing to help them (Matt. 35:31-46). These prisoners were more like the kind of prisoner Jesus himself became.

But Christian people, including chaplains and those who work with prison ministries such as Karios (www.kairos.org.au) or Prison Fellowship Australia (www.pfi.org.au), cannot but help respond to modern prisoners. Even if we include more people under the category ‘prisoner’ than was originally meant by Jesus or by the author of Hebrews, there are two strong reasons for applying Hebrews 13:3 to modern prisoners.

First, the modern prison was invented to be a merciful judgment. It appeared at a time and place when people had realised the implication of our being forgiven by God. To be spared of wrath and granted mercy rubs off on human affairs: we learn to deal kindly with those who don’t deserve it. (Jesus argues as much when he condemns human vengefulness in Matt. 18:21-35). Even the magistrate will be judged; this moderates his judgment. Not all the early prison reformers were Christian, but they emerged from a culture shaped by this Christian gospel.

Second, the modern prison was invented as a way to promote and continue engagement between the community and the criminal. Prisons were placed in and near towns, and their industries contributed to the good of towns. The logic of prison practise advised the criminal that he does not exist to serve himself alone. Offenders remain members of that network of relationships called ‘society’. They exist to belong, to participate, and to contribute within society; and we are at our best as a society when we work towards offenders rejoining us.

But we are at our worst when we despise and ostracise prisoners and hold them in contempt. Prison ministries see how prisons tell offenders that society has harshly rejected them. Of course, many dedicated people within correctional systems treat people well; the systems and their workers are not necessarily wrong. But prisons easily become the kind of place that communicates a message from the wider community to a prisoner, as if we hate them and think they have no place among us. But people committed to Jesus disagree. Prison ministries offer grace, and help ex-offenders reintegrate into society. With Jesus, they seek to set prisoners free.

At the time of writing, the fate of convicted paedophile Dennis Ferguson highlights these issues. No community wants this man living among them. Talk-back radio programs have even aired demands for his relocation alone in the desert, or for his execution. But despite his heinous crimes, such ultra-vengeful ‘justice’ diminishes our society. When resettling those who have done time for crimes against children, governments should morally and practically consider how to prevent their access to any children. Yet even offenders against children need access to human society, and some degree of mercy.

At a recent conference in Sydney, Our prisons—Human Rights, Mental Health & Privatisation (www.icj-aust.org.au), participants were asked to reconsider various aspects of imprisonment as currently practised in Australia and NSW. The content was dense and sobering. Speakers included the Minister of the NSW Department of Corrective Services; academic researchers on prison populations; and activists on behalf of prisoners and their families. The issues are complex, and this listener was quite out of his depth. But one theme kept re-emerging throughout the day, and it deserves our close attention.

The NSW prison population continues to grow inexorably. But the vast majority of it consists of people incarcerated for short amounts of time. Of an overall ‘snapshot’ population of just over 10,000, over 2,000 people are on remand; and an annual ‘flow-through’ rate of 45,000-50,000 highlights just how many people have quite short sentences – some 50% with terms of less than six months.

Unfortunately, many of these ‘short-termers’ are poor, indigenous, female, of low IQ, intellectually disabled, mentally ill, or some combination of the above – with substance abuse often acting as a ‘multiplier’ of their other problems. These people have often experienced extreme childhood neglect, and have learnt very few skills for coping with life (e.g. reading or budgeting). They are best regarded as people with ‘complex needs’. Unfortunately, many men and women in this category arrive at a point in their lives where prison is the only life they are equipped to handle. It provides them with a roof, a bed, and meals; they develop coping strategies to deal with life on the inside. They don’t particularly like it, because after all, prison life is designed to be a form of punishment. But on release they are not equipped to live in other environments, and recidivism is partly driven by a tragic fear of the world beyond prison.

‘Once upon a time’ people like these might have been supported and enabled by a close-knit community, such as a village. But in our kind of society, we have collectively become clueless about how to help people with their complex needs. Over time, this society has drifted into using prison as what one speaker called a ‘therapeutic punishing institution’ for such people. Prisons now double as geographically remote complexes used as a social ‘too-hard basket’ for extremely needy people. (This comment should not be taken the wrong way: there are certainly bad and hardened people in prisons who definitely belong there.)

People with complex needs enter the system due to some low-level crime – and incredibly, for some this is the first time that their mental illness or intellectual disability is noticed by alert observers. Many keep cycling through the system due to an inability or failure to keep various parole conditions. They do not particularly like prison. Like us, they would prefer the security of a home, a job, a sense of belonging and an ability to belong. But they cannot find a way out.

What can Christians do to reach out to these people? It is clear that their complex needs are way beyond what one person or most churches could handle. But at the conference, the suggestion was made that such people can be well-served when clusters of ‘joined up’ services equip them to rejoin society. Workers in government and government-backed services are expert at creating the ‘community-embedded’ settings that so enable people.

For example, many community services begin relationships with prisoners in jail, and continue these relationships via post-release support services. (Anglicare chaplains have long promoted such arrangements.) On release from prison, a person might be housed in a ‘group home’ that has several trained case-workers on hand. With medical, psychiatric and educational help, these people can acquire skills they never received as children, and re-engage with society as contributors alongside us. (A Victorian program along these lines is getting good results.)

Such programs are expensive: several government or government-backed workers are needed to assist each person with complex needs. Programs also need to be long-term – not a strength in our society, which tends to ‘restructure’ (and pull funding) on community programs every few years.

Yet ironically, even this expensive community-embedded help is far cheaper than the cost of our prisons. The $160 million being spent on a new jail in Nowra, and the equivalent annual budget to run it, could keep community services like these running for decades. Even more ironically, such community services contribute strongly to what our society longs for when it builds a jail: an orderly, stable, settled, more crime-free society.

Unfortunately, there is a twist-in-the-tail to this style of thinking. Cassandra Shayler, Director of the Californian prison reform organisation Justice Now, describes how that U.S. state indentified some 4,500 prisoners with complex needs who did not belong in jail. But proposals for new ‘community-based’ facilities for them ‘morphed’ into the building of several new prisons. Shayler: ‘sometimes reformers’ rhetoric gets taken up and co-opted by the Department of Corrections. ... What it really results in is further expansion and entrenchment of the system that we already have.’ (ABC Radio, The Law Report 15/9/09.)

It is hard for correctional departments to hand over people and budgets to communities. It is also hard for politicians to support community services, because for anyone not in the field these services seem hidden, hard to understand, and suspiciously ‘soft on crime’. One way or another, people with complex needs find themselves back under the authority of those whose primary task is to punish.

Yet Christians can do something quite straightforward. Politicians need the grass-roots support that says: ‘community-embedded services are a better use of our money than large jails.’ Politicians need permission and courage to pursue and fund the idea.

Interestingly, a representative of the NSW Parliamentary Liberal Party stated at the conference that his party would not participate in a ‘law and order auction’ at the next election. That is, they would not ‘beat their chests’ for yet harsher sentencing and more jails. They are acutely aware that something new needs to be done to reduce prison populations and recidivism.

Now, then, would be the ideal time for Christians to propose new services for people with complex needs; to plead for their generous long-term funding; and to argue that such services must remain embedded in communities.

Andrew Cameron
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

Sources/Further Reading:

ABC Radio, The Law Report, 15/9/09: www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2009/2685211.htm

Archbishop Peter Jensen, ‘So many jailed, and the key of compassion thrown away,’ SMH May 14, 2007:
www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/so-many-jailed-key-of-compassion-thrown-away/2007/05/13/1178994996065.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Oliver M.T. O’Donovan, The Ways of Judgment: The Bampton Lectures, 2003. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

International Commission of Jurists Australia, ‘MEDIA RELEASE: Prisons Conference Report.’ www.icj-aust.org.au

Karios Prison Ministry Australia: www.kairos.org.au

Prison Fellowship Australia: www.pfi.org.au

Anglicare chaplaincy services: www.anglicare.org.au/our-services/chaplaincy

NSW Department of Corrective Services: www.dcs.nsw.gov.au

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply..

Conditions of use:

1. You may forward this paper to others, as long as you forward it in full.

2. You may freely publish it (e.g. in a church newspaper) as long as it is published in full, not for profit, and including the ‘Note’ paragraph. (You don’t have to include these ‘conditions’.)

3. Media and academic publishers should cite this paper according to their professional standards. We would appreciate audiences being directed to www.sie.org.au.

4. Not-for-profit publishers may use the ideas in this paper without acknowledgement; but if quoting it directly, please cite title, authors, and the web link www.sie.org.au.

5. Permission may be given for use in publications for profit. Please send details of your proposal to lisa.watts@moore.edu.au.

Australia is ageing. There are more older Australian now than ever before, and their numbers are rising. Does this prospect excite you, or worry you?

It seems to worry our government. An ageing populace creates many implications for public policy, and the purpose of this briefing is to touch upon some of these, particularly in relation to work. We will look at the work of those in aged care, and the work options (or not) for those who age.

But ‘Australia is ageing’ can become a statement open to new and intriguing possibilities. The Christian church knows something of these, as suggested by U.S. theologian Stanley Hauerwas (above). Each italicised section outlines some statistics and government responses, and we will then observe something that Christians know to be true about the aged. In this way, we will have a small ‘thought experiment’ about how ageing Australia could have some hidden bonuses.

1. Overview. It is easy to fall into the trap of viewing older people as one homogenous group, but in fact the statistics tell a different story. (For some ‘snapshots’ of our ageing population, see the appendix to this briefing). One common misconception about the aged according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is not supported by the data, is that the vast majority of older people are a burden on the community and are being ‘looked after’.

They report that the “overwhelming majority of older people live in private dwellings – only 6% live in non-private dwellings, which include aged care homes and hospitals. Even among those aged 85 years and over, 74% live in private dwellings. Almost one quarter of men aged 65-69 participate in the workforce, along with 13% of women in same age group. Despite having relatively low average levels of income, 24% of all older Australians were providing direct or indirect financial support for adult children or other relatives living outside the household”. Also, “Older Australians actively contribute to family and community life. Almost half of people aged 65-74 years (48%) provide unpaid assistance to someone outside their household, one-third (33%) provide volunteer services through an organization ...  and two thirds are in social and support groups”.

Christians continually see older people upholding churches and other communities through acts of service, with generosity, and by conversations that convey wisdom and build relationships. What if our society construed ageing in a new way? Rather than presenting ‘retirement’ as the opportunity for an endless holiday, what if we looked forward to our retirement as that new stage of life where we are freed to help others in a variety of new ways? (Many Christians think of their retirement as an ongoing opportunity for ‘ministry’—that is, for building up friends and neighbours in the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ and of others.)

2. The aged care workforce. According to a report from the Productivity Commission, the evidence suggests that:

“... over the next 40 years there will be difficulties in securing an adequate supply of personnel with the necessary skills to support the delivery of aged care services. There is already a shortage of nurses in general, and of aged care workers in particular. On average, the age profile of the residential care workforce is markedly older than the health and community care workforce and the Australian labour force as a whole. Over the coming decades, the sector will need to replace a growing number of retiring workers”.

One of the biggest problems for employers in attracting and retaining staff is the low remuneration compared to other sectors.

Aged care also relies heavily on informal carers. However the availability of these carers is expected to decline over coming decades while demand increases, thus contributing to a large shortfall. Volunteers also play an important role in supporting the aged. It is expected that the potential pool of volunteers will more than double by 2050 but the aged care sector is likely to face increasing competition from other community activities.

Christian theology teaches that interdependence is our normal condition in human society. What if our society sought to banish all conceptions of care as merely a  ‘burden’ on carers? What if we vigorously resisted the notion that the ‘resources’ for care are ‘scarce’? What if this community affirmed the interdependence seen in aged care as an honourable condition, both to the carer and the cared, which clearly embodies the way humanity is to be with and for one another? What if we honoured these carers by paying the more and by speaking more highly of them?

3. Employment and older Australians. A recent report by National Seniors states that “painting a picture of mature age employment and unemployment isn’t simple or straightforward – the reality is often disguised”. For example:

• Early retirement implies a voluntary outcome when it can actually be due to involuntary workforce exit;
• Self-employment may be a response to difficulty finding employment;
• Working part-time may be due to insufficient full-time employment opportunities;
• Older people who are not employed are much more likely than younger people to be classified as ‘not in the labour force’ rather than ‘unemployed’.

Within this complexity, one thing stands out: older people are not participating fully in the labour market, and the reasons for this lower participation rate are disguised by underemployment and hidden unemployment.

Although mature age unemployment has been falling in recent years, it is set to rise significantly in the wake of the global recession. People 55 and over are likely to remain unemployed for three times longer than younger people. Barriers to mature age employment include:

• Discrimination on the basis of age;
• Lack of appropriate skills and training as skill requirements change, and limited opportunities to upgrade skills;
• Personal circumstances related to health and disability issues associated with the ageing process, and care giving responsibilities; and
• Government income support policies that limit access to training and education for older workers and act as disincentives to combining part-time paid employment with income support, including the age pension.

Consider the role of information technology in the life of this group. While some 75% of 45-54yr olds use this technology, the number decreases to 60% of 55-64yr olds, then to 40% of 65-74 yr olds, then 18% of 75-84yr olds and 6% of those over 85. If we imagine that an older person is only ‘useful’ in a workforce to the extent that they can use this technology, then it constitutes a significant barrier to their employment.

According to the Bible, older people are often the repository of ‘wisdom’ and ‘maturity’. What if older people were not thought of simply as another ‘useful’ or ‘useless’ unit of labour, when compared to a technology-using or physically active younger person? What would it look like for employers to re-imagine the role of older workers? What could an organisation become, if older workers were set free to mentor younger workers? What if they were always invited to tell of the history of an organisation? What if we continued to learn from each older person all the past mistakes and successes that they remember taking place in their field?

4. Pension age rise to 67. In justifying the Government’s decision to raise the pension age in the May 2009 budget, Treasurer Wayne Swan said a decision was needed to keep pensions sustainable. "Currently we have five workers in Australia for every person aged 65 and over and by 2050, that will be 2½ … Life expectancy has increased by 23 years since the age pension came in … twice as many people are going on it for twice as long."

Many commentators agree that the move to raise the pension age along the lines of other OECD countries was necessary. But some are concerned about the effect on blue collar workers and the physical demands of working longer, and about the effect on older people who have difficulty remaining fully employed and would then have to rely on lower income supports for longer.

Should people access their superannuation only at aged pension age? Those in favour say it would be more equitable to do so; those against argue that earlier access to superannuation enables flexibility about when to retire.  Whether to raise the age at which people can access their superannuation will be a fiercely debated question when considered by Government later this year.

A Christian theology of politics entrusts judgments about justice and the common good to our leaders, who must learn and weigh much complex data. Christians hope and pray that they will have wisdom to arbitrate well. What would it look like to urge and encourage our leaders in this difficult task? How may we resist these issues of superannuation and pension age becoming reduced merely to each individual’s self-interest?

5. Further implications. We have caught the barest glimpse of some matters facing the nation when it comes to the aged. Interestingly, Christian churches are well placed to offer helpful contributions to these issues, even if we do not know about the technical details:

a)     A community of people in Christ is the natural venue to find a pool of willing, caring people who may be well-suited to aged care. We value this work, speak highly of it, and sometimes direct people to it (e.g. in the Anglican case, as many of our members work in Anglicare’s Chesalon and in Anglican Retirement Villages). How may churches better honour those who do this work and enable them to do it better? How might churches encourage others to engage in this kind of care?

b)     A community of people in Christ includes many employers. These people are often already very thoughtful about the welfare of those in their workplaces. What is their view of older people? Can these employers lead our society in reimagining new roles for the aged—roles that do not rely on physical strength or technical prowess, but which honour and learn from our elders’ wisdom and memory?

c)      A community of people in Christ knows what it is to care for the needy. Are our churches aware of the financial vulnerability of older people (particularly those living alone, relying on the pension and living in rental accommodation)? How is this awareness expressed? How can it be better expressed?

d)     A community of people in Christ naturally honours the contributions made by all members of this body, irrespective of their age. We already know and see many older people who contribute to the vibrant life of Christian churches. How may we ‘export’ this blessing to local communities?

e)     A community of people in Christ mourns death, and the debilitating aspects of ageing, as an alien intrusion in God’s good world. Its mature elders have internalised this truth, often knowing true hope and joy in Christ despite ageing bodies. How may this good news be taken to other older people in our communities, who are only able to think despairingly in terms of their ‘uselessness’, and who have been forced to regard themselves only as a ‘burden’ on others? How may they discover, with us, the joyful hope of Jesus’ resurrection?

Sources/Further Reading:

ABS, ‘A Picture of a nation’
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/CDB02459C40E51EDCA25754C0013B914?OpenDocument

ABS, ‘Population Ageing in NSW’
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/DF3D1F54634E7D27CA257521000D7AF8?OpenDocument

ABS, ‘Age Matters’
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4914.0.55.001

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, ‘Older Australia at a Glance’
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10402

Misha Schubert, ‘Push to lock up superannuation savings until 67,’ SMH 14/5/2009
http://business.theage.com.au/business/federal-budget/push-to-lock-up-superannuation-savings-until-age-67-20090513-b39y.html?page=-1

Productivity Commission, ‘Trends in Aged Care Services: Some implications’
http://www.pc.gov.au/research/commissionresearch/aged-care-trends

Lyn Arnold, ‘Which Aged care problem?’ Adelaide Review/APO 30/7/09
http://apo.org.au/commentary/which-aged-care-problem

National Seniors, ‘Experience Works: The Mature Age Employment Challenge’
http://www.nationalseniors.com.au/ebiz/content/wsc.aspx?ID=84

Professor Peter Whiteford (UNSW Social Policy Research Centre), interview on Life Matters, ABC radio 26/5/2009
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2009/2580265.htm

Hauerwas, Stanley. In good company: the Church as polis. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995, p. 185

I have paid the ultimate price. I have to live with myself. I have to look at myself and know it was my choice—I did it ... The worst part of the pain is there’s no one to share it with ... not a day goes by when I don’t think about it. I can’t believe I did it, I wish I could change everything and go back ... [mother of 4]

The lady who met me [at the local family planning service] treated me as rudely as anyone could treat someone, there was no caring or concern in her manner. No options were presented to me. She said I was stupid to get pregnant and as I was eighteen and at university she ‘presumed I wanted an abortion’. I remember asking about the difference between a local and general anaesthetic and she said ‘have [a] local as then you will know it happened and never make this mistake again.’ I asked her at the time about other options, and she said ‘Do you want to finish uni?’; I said ‘Of course’ and she replied ‘Well you can’t have a child’ ... I don’t remember making the decision, just that this is what I was expected to do ... it seemed there would be no support and no future for me if I were to have the child.’ [‘Katarina’]

The doctor and nurse ... didn’t prepare me for the horror of termination ... I thought my uterus was being sucked out ... I could hear them saying it was a healthy nine-week-old foetus and everything was intact. [‘Melody’]

When the Victorian Bill to decriminalise abortion passed into law, the Parliament applauded.

The Social Issues Executive has written against abortion on several occasions (see links below to briefings #002, #019, #032, and #040; and to the booklet Abortion: a Christian response). In a society where abortion is so common and enjoys such extensive legal and political protection, we suggested that Christian resistance might aim to create a child- and woman-friendly culture, where pregnant women under adverse circumstances really can become mothers. We wanted to see churches become ‘oases of welcome’ for women and their babies.

But we have to admit that our suggestion remained merely theoretical. We did find another organisation, Women’s Forum Australia (WFA), also working for practical changes to our culture which would help women avoid unwanted abortion. WFA is an independent women’s think tank that conducts research, education and public policy development about a range of issues that affect women. WFA brings together women from diverse backgrounds, and works across the usual political and religious divides, to advocate for life affirming, pro-woman alternatives to abortion which would enhance women’s freedom to have their babies. Melinda Tankard Reist, a director of WFA, compiled the stories above in a collection of eighteen personal accounts of Australian women suffering after abortion.

When she shared some of these accounts recently at Sydney’s Moore College, a remarkable thing happened. One of the students saw a way forward that is best expressed in his words:

‘It was only when I heard the horror of these women’s stories that it hit me: if I claim to be Christian, if I claim to love those created in God’s image, my faith can’t just sit in my head in an ethics lecture. I can’t be merely theoretical. If I am going to take seriously the call from Jesus to love the weak and vulnerable, then when an opportunity arises to do something about this, surely those whose lives have been transformed by Jesus should be the ones to act!

‘God has provided us with a fantastic opportunity to love and care for women who are thinking about or who have aborted, and for their unborn children. This generous government that our great God put in place has decided to boost the economy. On December 8th, those who receive Family Tax Benefit A will be given $1000 per child. Christians could support a myriad of ministries with this money—but imagine what a unified front could do!

‘Imagine we gave just half of the money the government gives us, and put it towards the unborn. If families at Moore College have, say, three hundred children between them, that’s $150,000. That could make a difference!’—Rowan Hilsden

Reactions among the college community were immediate:

• ‘I’d been in a conversation with some U.S. friends at church,’ said first-year student Tessa. ‘They asked me what Christian evangelicals were planning to do in light of the growing epidemic of abortions in Australia. I confessed that we expressed our sadness, but did not actually act in any way. They were shocked, and I was ashamed. So when this opportunity arose, I felt compelled to finally take some action.’
• For Katrina, ‘I think it’s so important that we are seen to be making a positive contribution to support these women and babies, and not just heard to be negative and guilt-provoking. What better use of this grant could there be?’
• ‘When I first heard this plan,’ said Ali, ‘my first thought was that finally the church is doing something proactive about the abortion issue. It’s an opportunity to tell the world that we will no longer be silent.’
• ‘Abortion is having a deep impact upon our population,’ said Thora. ‘Christians need to be those who welcome babies and care for women in distress, and this opportunity is a tangible way to show love. It’s never too late.’

A plan is now emerging from the student body, and it is remarkable. These low-income earning students are choosing generosity over consumption. They hope to achieve three goals:

1. To support and grow Anglicare’s Carramar Early Interventions, a safe-house and support program that cares for young pregnant women in adverse circumstances who want to keep their child.
2. To support Women’s Forum Australia, the pioneering independent organization that is committed to ‘inspiring a woman-friendly culture.’ WFA has repeatedly challenged the prevailing abortion culture at many levels.
3. To produce a high quality TV-style ad campaign in conjunction with Anglicare, Anglican Media and appropriate partners. It will showcase interviews with women who have had abortions and who want to speak out. Distributed via the internet, it will point pregnant women to a website with links to quality counseling services across Australia, and with evidence-based information on abortion and its alternatives.

Money will be collected by Anglicare, and in consultation with a student oversight group, will be divided between these three causes. The purpose of this briefing is to invite you to contribute with these students, and to invite other Christians to follow:

To make your contribution phone Anglicare on 132622 and quote ‘Free money for new lives’ or go to www.freemoneyfornewlives.com.au.

But isn’t this money given to be spent upon ourselves? Isn’t it to ‘boost the economy’? What if we have already ‘emotionally spent’ it? Of course, even to give half away still leaves us with half-more. There will be plenty left to spend; and the half given will also boost the economy. (Indeed charitable organisations will need a ‘boost’ most of all, since this sector is extremely sensitive to economic downturn.)

But more important personal issues are at stake. When Archbishop Jensen observed that ‘we are experiencing a significant economic downturn’, he went on to ask: ‘What sort of people will we be now?’ At around the same time, Jensen admitted on Sydney radio that his first impulse at the economic news was to worry. But then he remembered that his Lord commanded generosity, even in hard times. As he continued before the recent Synod in Sydney:

[I]t would have been better to invest in the great biblical virtues, faith, hope and love. In abundance or in want, these are better for human beings to aspire to. I hope that we have not forgotten them, for we are going to need them. Faith that God is in control; confidence in his future as being that which fulfils human existence; love from him, that makes us generous to others. These are the qualities we are now going to need more than ever as a community, as a nation. If Australia does better than others in the crisis, we will bear an even greater responsibility for the poor of the earth.

It seems that God has begun blessing Australia by giving his love to a bunch of students. On December 8th, they will give half of Prime Minister Rudd’s economic rescue money for a different kind of rescue.

At Sydney’s recent Synod, a strong motion concerning abortion (see appendix below) called for ‘social changes’ to ‘reduce the number of abortions’. The students’ collection will be our Christian community’s first serious practical expression of this call.

If you receive this free money, we invite you to join with them (and even if you don’t receive it, you are most welcome to make a contribution). Let us become those who meet economic crisis with generosity for the poor of the earth—in this case, the unborn and their mothers.

Sources/Further Reading:

‘Free money for new lives’: http://www.freemoneyfornewlives.com.au

Anglicare Carramar Early Interventions: http://www.anglicare.org.au/our-services/child-youth-and-family-services/carramar-early-interventions.

Women’s Forum Australia: http://www.womensforumaustralia.org.

Dr. Peter F. Jensen, 2008 Synod Presidential Address, Wesley Centre October 13th 2008; online: http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/mission/missionthinking/the_2008_presidential_address.

Social Issues: http://sie.moore.edu.au.

• Click ‘Briefings’ for briefings #002, #019, #032, #040
• Click ‘Reports’ for the booklet Abortion: a Christian response (Printed versions of this booklet can be purchased through http://www.moorebooks.com.au.)

Melinda Tankard Reist, Giving Sorrow Words: Women's Stories of Grief After Abortion. Sydney: Duffy and Snellgrove, 2000. (Quotations from pp 13, 27-28 and 35. Names changed by the author. Can be purchased through http://www.womensforumaustralia.org, click on ‘shop’.)

‘Vic abortion bill passes lower house,’ SMH September 12 2008; online: http://news.smh.com.au/national/vic-abortion-bill-passes-lower-house-20080912-4eux.html.

‘Here's what you get with Kevin Rudd's rescue package,’ Daily Telegraph October 15, 2008; online: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24498946‐5015795,00.html.

Appendix:

48th Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney

Extract from Synod Proceedings for 21 October 2008

Motions: 34/08: Abortion

Noting recent renewed debate about abortion around Australia, this Synod –

1. affirms pregnancy and childbirth are part of God’s good plan for humankind,
2. affirms pregnancy is the privilege and responsibility of both the mother and the father of the unborn person,
3. affirms the sanctity of life, even of the unborn child,
4. supports legislative and social changes which would reduce the number of abortions in Australia, and
5. encourages and applauds health professionals who, for reasons of conscience, do not promote, aid or assist in ending the life of the unborn, except where the mother’s life is gravely at risk,
6. recognises the need of those who have knowingly participated in ending the life of the unborn, especially women who have had abortions, to hear the wonderful news of forgiveness in the death and resurrection of Christ,
7. encourages all Christians equally to make known Jesus’ love for all unborn human life and judgement of those who end it, and his offer of forgiveness for those who have done so.

Synod requests that the content of this motion be forwarded to the following persons—the Prime Minister, the Federal Opposition Leader, Senator Guy Barnett of Tasmania, the NSW Premier and Leader of the Opposition and the bishops of each of the Anglican dioceses of Australia.

(Canon Sandy Grant 21/10/2008)

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. [Galatians 5:1]

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC; formerly HREOC) is a body formed by Commonwealth statute. Its task is to examine international human rights agreements, and to make recommendations to Federal Government accordingly.

The AHRC has begun a ‘Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Project’, since ‘freedom of religion’ is a U.N.-recognised human right. This new and wide-ranging project will map the state-of-play for freedom of religion and belief in Australia. Details follow in an appendix to this briefing; but broadly, the project seeks to address the experiences and place in civil society of every religious belief (including ‘secular belief’), and especially that of Muslim communities.

‘Freedom’, and freedom of religious belief, are extremely important to Christians for many reasons. Jesus the liberator. When Jesus introduces himself as a liberator, his first hearers are offended [John 8:31-36]. They do not believe they need the release from sin to ‘sonship’ that he offers. But he insists that this truth ‘will set you free,’ and early Christians are mesmerised by it. Christ, writes one, gives ‘the glorious freedom of the children of God’ [Rom. 8:31] through the Spirit [Rom. 8:2, 2 Cor. 3:17].

Because Christ has cut the link between our performance and our acceptability to God, every human attempt to condemn now has no weight [1 Cor. 10:29, Gal. 5:1]. Also, moral action is no longer ‘junked up’ with our need to impress God (as if our puny morality ever could impress the Holy One). So we are freed to act for the good of the other—free now to ‘love’ them for their own sake [Gal. 5:13; cf. Rom. 6:18,22]. It becomes clear that the Bible's moral sections are a ‘law of liberty’ [Jas. 1:25, 2:12]—a kind of ‘roadmap’ that frees us to love well.

This freedom with God and for others enables us to discern false ‘freedoms’, such as the freedom that seems free because it brings pleasure. Freedom for pleasure is lost and barren on its own, and only finds its proper ‘home’ within the freedom to love others, and within freedom before God. [Cf. 2 Pet. 2:19.]

Living free

‘Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,’ says the apostle Peter [1 Pet. 2:13]. ‘Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.’ [1 Pet. 2:16]. How can he say both ‘be subject’ and ‘live free’? The two ideas seem totally contradictory.

But when we are owned by the Lord, a strange paradox follows. Human authorities often reflect Christ's rule, even if only roughly, and we can go along with that as ‘subjects’. But when the authority stops resembling Christ, we can live free as the ‘servants of God’. (We can fool ourselves, though, nobly claiming freedom as a ‘cover-up’ for the evil. Such self-deception simply fails to love others, and is another false ‘freedom’.)

All this theology shaped our democratic traditions. It gave an ‘exalted’ view of each person: each could stand apart from society on the basis of their ‘conscience’. As a result, no State can stand between a person and God. Each is free to know God (which may result in some denying God). Each is free to find what God wants for them, and to assemble with like-minded others. We can begin to see how the New Testament's ‘spiritual’ freedom became a ‘freedom of conscience’ that in turn shaped many social freedoms.

Australian freedom of belief

The project is a comprehensive review:

• based on public submissions (closing 31 January 2009), and ...
• extensive input from the community by means of focus groups and by discussion with religious leaders (during 2009 in NSW), all for ...
• a detailed report due for release in 2010, which may well ...
• recommend legislative changes.

The AHRC wants a cohesive civil society that sustains freedom of belief. But the AHRC thinks that freedoms within a cohesive pluralist society are not easily realised. Some Muslim community grievances will figure prominently in their investigation. They note that for other religious people, religious beliefs and human rights mix ‘like oil and water’ (as Tom Calma puts it). They realise that no one's ‘right’ is ever absolute, and that the best way to maintain ‘freedom’ without obliterating someone's ‘right’ will require careful negotiation.

Some Christians are concerned about the AHRC's Project. There may be good reasons for these concerns. For example, at some points the discussion paper hints of a challenge to important Christian freedoms. Also, the value of a Federal charter of rights, of existing ‘religious exemptions’ to anti-discrimination law, and of new religious anti-vilification laws, will emerge as topics for consideration; and conservative Christians are traditionally edgy about these matters. But we should presume no malice or ill-will, since Christian citizens are invited to participate in the process.

We should also note that the AHRC is an advisory body only. Its recommendations can influence legislative change, but legislation is finally changed by the Parliament. The ‘Freedom of Religion and Belief Project’ does not necessarily reflect a sudden change in government policy. We cannot predict what effect, if any, the final report will have on law and government policy.

At this stage, the Social Issues Executive views the Project as an opportunity to state Anglican evangelical concerns in an orderly way, and to lay the foundation for long-term dialogue with government. (We view the process as an opportunity to offer a ‘defence’ for the excellence of Christian belief, and for the rationale of Christian practice, a bit like early Christian apologists once did in ancient Rome.)

An attack on ‘Christian heritage’?

This section deserves a briefing on its own, but a quick comment is better than none.

Some Christians argue that Australia is a ‘Christian country’ since it was founded on Christian principles and grew from British Christian stock. As a result, any attempt to shift the national status-quo away from Christianity and toward some other religion or belief, is wrong. For these Christians, the AHRC's project is likely to be considered an attack on our ‘Christian heritage’.

It is undeniably correct to highlight the many ways Christianity informed and shaped our early colonies and Federation (even if a radically anti-Christian strand of the Enlightenment was also part of our national story). The nation would be foolish to ignore how this significant Christian component of our history has affected our institutions.

Yet many Australians deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ, do not profess to follow him, and know nothing of repentance and forgiveness before God. Hence evangelical Christians cannot in good conscience call Australia ‘a Christian country’. To do so would mask the way this generation of Christians needs to show other Australians how Christ is good news for them.

For the purposes of the AHRC project, then, the SIE will argue that Australia ‘is not a Christian country, but is not a blank slate either’. Australia needs to find a way to share cultural space between people of different beliefs, while never pretending away the depth of its Christian roots. It follows that any attempt to banish public manifestations of Christianity is a silly denial of our past. (Of course neither should we attempt to banish public manifestations of other beliefs.)

What next?

• Read the AHRC discussion paper (see link in appendix below).
• Stay tuned: the SIE is taking an active interest as the Project unfolds.
• If you tend toward paranoia, don't panic. If you are a bit lazy, don't be complacent. Start reading and thinking in two or three of the areas raised by the AHRC discussion paper.
• Write a submission to the AHRC. After all, they want to find out about people's experiences of freedom (or not) of religion and belief. Be polite but direct; tell any stories that are relevant; and stick to what you know.

Appendix: further details on the Project

1. A discussion paper explains this project and invites submissions from the community. It is available at http://www.humanrights.gov.au/partnerships/projects/freedom_religion.html.
2. Speakers at the launch of the discussion paper included:
   • Tom Calma (Race Discrimination Commissioner);
   • Laurie Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services); and
   • Dr Hass Dellal (executive Director, Australian Multicultural Foundation).

   Their speeches are available at http://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/launch.html.

3. The project has seven broad terms of reference (reworded here for simplicity):
   1. Evaluation of the relevance and impact of the 1998 HREOC report, Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief (the recommendations of which are reproduced on pp. 11-13 of the discussion paper).
   2. Assessment of the adequacy of the Australian Constitution's Section 116 to protect freedom of religion, especially in the absence of a Charter of Rights.
   3. Investigation of interactions between religion and the delivery of services (e.g. in education and human services [i.e. welfare]).
   4. Consideration of the impacts upon religious freedom of September 11 2001.
   5. Examination of how religious belief affects political and cultural aspirations (e.g. for gender equality, or in relation to civic responsibility).
   6. Consideration of whether media practices and emerging technologies affect religious freedom.
   7. Scrutiny of instances where religious freedom seems directly to contradict ‘fundamental human rights’ (e.g. for disabled people, or in relation to sexuality).

Fifty-one wide-ranging questions are posed under these seven headings.

Submissions may also raise and comment on areas not mentioned in the discussion paper.