Christian
radical reflections 42,
October 12, 2004 AD
|
Daniel 5:24-31: "Then
from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed: MENE,
MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN. This is the interpretation of the matter: MENE, God
has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; TEKEL, you
have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; PERES, your kingdom is
divided and given to the Medes and Persians. Then Belshazzar commanded and
Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold was put about his neck, and
proclamation was made concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in
the kingdom. That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. And
Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old. |
When John Howard
won the election in 2001, he did so having given a firm indication of his
opposition to embryonic stem-cell research. By the time of the COAG meeting in
early 2002 he, with eastern State Labor premiers, had decided that this was
research the nation had to have. The Australian Prime Minister cast his vote in
the Parliament on the side of those wanting to allow such research. Without
this legislation such research couldn't proceed, and so because of his public
pronouncements on the issue, the Prime Minister became a prominent advocate of
the "Yes" vote.
On Saturday, John
Howard's government was returned with an increased majority. To a significant
degree that return was made possible by preferences from a conservative
fundamentalist Christian party called Family First. Given the result of the
election, particularly because of the widespread Christian dismay at the return
of John Howard as Prime Minister, it is going to be very important for Family
First and the Liberal Party to be absolutely transparent about how their
preference deal was struck between them. After all, Family First is a
"Right to Life" party completely opposed to embryonic stem-cell
research and the Liberal Party is led by a leader who changed his view on the matter
at a crucial point in the Parliamentary process that cleared the way for $101
million dollars worth of federal funding for private commercial gain in the
biotech industry.
That
Parliamentary debate which split the nation, was concluded by a
"conscience" vote which normally means that there is no party line to
be observed. I have already made public my views that a kind of "hidden
party line" seems to have been at work in the way some issues were not
raised and debated publicly and in parliament. I touch on that again below.
In
"conscience votes" any elected representative, be it humble
back-bencher or PM, should have the freedom to be persuaded on any issue and
change his/her mind. But the PM did not change his mind during that debate. He
had already changed his mind and went into that debate arguing "Yes"
even though his re-election for the seat of Bennelong in 2001 gave a strong
indication that he was opposed to such research. Because of the PM's prominent
place in introducing that legislation, there are matters related to his change
of mind that still worry many conscientious citizens. The PM's change of mind
only became apparent in the midst of initiatives he took with the three eastern
state Labor premiers sometime early in 2002. We should not now simply treat
this as a private matter of John Howard's change of opinion. It is a public
issue and if he was a Liberal politician who followed conventional Deakinite
principles he would have first resigned his seat and submitted himself to a
re-election in his electorate on the basis of his changed stance. But he didn't
and his less than transparent explanation subsequently has had a significant
impact upon the life of the nation.
Now, ironically,
after Saturday's election result, the "need to know" about the PM's
change of mind is increased to a greater level than ever before. Now Family
First, the party which some say has delivered him a fourth term as PM, finds
that its "right to life" principles are in the limelight of public
scrutiny, and in a most unexpected way.
When we consider
the way votes for Family First have shaped the election result we see that it
is part of a stunning electoral victory for John Howard's long held and
well-known policy about policy. This is the clue that helps us make sense
of this apparently confusing election result. John Howard the politician lives
by the doctrine that there are election promises which are "core" and
there are those which are "not core". His conduct after the 2001
election in regard to embryonic stem cell research clearly indicated that for
himself, for the party he leads, and the Government of which he is the leading
office-bearer, "right to life" issues are "not core".
What Family First has to get used to is that a "non core" commitment
to "right to life" principles by the Liberal Party does not stop the
Liberals making deals with those who are committed to such principles. Family
First would seem to have ignored this but now, as a result its electoral
victories, it cannot be avoided.
The
"mind" John Howard espoused before the 2001 election seemed then to
confirm significant support for his Government from a large section of
"Right to Life" voters. So he does not only owe "Family
First" an explanation about this matter but the entire country still waits
for his explanation. What was at stake for him when he and the Labor premiers
made their pronouncement after the COAG meeting of 2002? The subsequent passing
of legislation does not explain what transpired. But now, having gathered the
preferences of Family First, we wait to see whether Howard's new-found
political allies can prevail upon him to provide an adequate explanation of
what must be to them his most significant change of mind.
The reason why
this scandal is not likely to bring down the Howard Government is the exact
same reason that brought this upon us in the first place. It is the uncritical
acceptance of the pragmatic shift between "core" and "non
core" promises that allows such a scandal to go undetected. This is not
only John Howard's policy, but it is also the frame of reference adopted by
those who vote for him. If now it can cause a bit of a flurry it might help to
make problematic some aspects of our Parliamentary system which so many
consider to be a normal and expected feature of our political culture. If it
was ever to bring down the Federal Government it couldn't do so without also
putting a severe dint into the support base that allows the Labor State
premiers (Beattie, Carr and Bracks) to hold onto power. And that may be why, with
the exception of Brian Harradine, few parliamentarians have expressed any
serious concerns about the way in which this debate and legislation was
orchestrated.
But now Family
First should not be hang-dog about it. It's a matter that drives to the heart
of their own stated political principles. To avoid this issue would be to adopt
Howard's policy perspective in which only some promises are "core"
while others are "not core". Howard's "policy policy" is
antithetical to any Christian political involvement from whatever corner
it may come.
For this reason
it may be a misreading of the situation to say that Family First has been
victorious. Family First delivered its preferences to the Liberal Party which
then won more seats as a result. It also gained its own voice in the Senate.
But the "electoral victory" lies elsewhere in Howard's "policy
policy". It remains to be seen whether Family First, and other Christian
allies of Howard's Government, can extricate themselves from the compromised
commitment that this PM has laid at the foundation of Australian political
life.
In my post of 4th January
2004 I have discussed some worrying facts in relation to that legislation
which throw a significantly different light upon the way the debate was set up
and its consequences. These include:
1. Australia was
already in de facto support of embryonic stem-cell research overseas
prior to that nation splitting parliamentary debate and this had been made
possible by a lack of import and export controls on human embryos;
2. Embryos
imported from Australia had been used in such research overseas for some
considerable time prior to the debate and Parliamentary decision;
3. The inability
of the PM and the State Premiers to explain the true legal and commercial
character of their decision to advocate this legislation, particularly in the
light of the fact that there were no import or export controls on human embryos
at the time they agreed to orchestrate such federal legislation to facilitate
such local research;
4. The failure of
certain senior Coalition ministers who registered "No" votes during
that contentious Parliamentary debate to disclose these facts as part of their
supposed Christian rationale for opposing the legislation.
Looking back now
at that contentious Parliamentary debate we discern the outlines of a
well-managed diversion. The attention of the country was drawn to a
"core" of ethics and morality but the economic issues in relation to
trade barriers and export controls were in the main left to one side. In fact
they should have been at the fore of the discussion because they were and are
integral to the entire debate and Australia's implicit involvement in the
global trade. Ironically, it is Family First which is now in a position to
politically expose John Howard at that point where the PM has very seriously
compromised the integrity of the political and legislative process of this
country. And after all, for him economic policies are nearly always "core"
as he repeatedly reminded us during the election campaign: "policies
count for nothing unless you have an economic base from which you can pay for
them." But that principle didn't mean he would tell the
Australian people the economic fact that there were no controls on the import
or export of human embryos at the time he told us he had changed his mind. This
is a "non-core" issue which will not go way. It has already had
significant consequences.
It is indeed a
messy business. And when it is realised that this was also the time when the
much vaunted Free Trade Agreement with the USA was being negotiated, one has to
wonder just why it was that the question of export and import controls on human
embryos was not raised, particularly by those Coalition ministers who had been
informed of the Dutch newspaper article of 29 November 2001: 'Klonen wordt
wellicht overbodig'. There Dr Christine Mummery
of the Hubrecht Institute is quoted as saying: "Wij werken immers met
reeds bestaande embryonale stamcellen die ik importeerde uit Australië." ("We
are already working with existing embryonic stemcells that I have imported
from Australia.")
Political opportunism
will always lead us a merry dance down some very strange paths and into snares
from which we can't easily extricate ourselves. But for Christians involved in
politics the question of truth cannot be fudged, at least if we are to remain
true to our calling to serve our fellow citizens politically in the name of
Jesus Christ. Those who find themselves elected representatives in the
Australian federal parliament will want to know more and will want the country
to learn the truth on this matter. A certain Texan presidential candidate
running for re-election in his country should also want to know more about this
matter particularly since, on this issue, George W Bush advocates a position
that the Australian Prime Minister seems to have held before the 2001 election.
We will have to
continue this discussion. This matter illustrates once more the need for a new
approach to politics, a fundamental overhaul of our entire system of political
representation in the Parliaments of this country.
|
October 2004 © Christian Radical
Reflections, is written by Bruce C Wearne (PhD), 29 Lawrence Rd.,
Point Lonsdale Vic 3225 AUSTRALIA, 61-3-5258-3913. Each edition may be
photocopied or retransmitted in its entirety but not otherwise published,
reprinted or transmitted without permission. This personal project
aims to encourage positive Christian citizenship, the development
of policies and political attitudes that better express our love for God and
our neighbour. Your comments are welcome. Email can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html |