Christian
radical reflections 52,
September 13, 2005 AD
“The great challenge for anyone wishing to speak publicly on the issues, is to be well informed.” Senator Abetz is reported to have said this while addressing the Salt Shakers annual dinner, in Box Hill, at the end of August. The address apparently included broadsides against the ill-informed criticisms of churches and other Christians in political debate. It was reported in the Hobart Mercury.
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16417583%255E3462,00.html
Salt Shakers' account can be found at http://www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/322/B/323/
From these reports we learn that Senator Abetz is deeply disappointed with churches, and other Christian critics of his Government, for not doing their homework. His frustration may have some justification, but if there is a problem it is also a structural one and it did not emerge for the first time after his party won government in 1996.
The Salt Shaker press release is headed "Straight talking from Senator" but both it and the Mercury account, give no help to readers who want to understand the structural problem that faces us at local, state and federal levels about the less than satisfactory state of affairs with respect to the public understanding of political issues and legislation. The fact that we are not politically well-informed is a serious problem for our citizenship. And if there is widespread ignorance the major parties must take their share of the blame. But from the reports, at least, Senator Abetz seemed to want to shift the problem, implying that it is basically a failure of individuals to inform themselves.
But to construe the issue in this way is short-sighted; the problem is about citizenship; about voters and elected representatives. It is about knowing what is going on in government. As a Christian, the Senator should be free to admit it is one problem he has not been able to rectify during his time in parliament. Some of the blame, at least, has to be placed at his door, the door of the office of the Special Minister of State. What's he doing to solve it? It's all very well launching out to criticise others but what's he doing about it?
If it is true that there is a lot of uninformed, frustrated
criticism doing the rounds then shouldn't the Senator, as a parliamentarian,
and as a Christian, be looking carefully at the problem and trying to discern
the reasons for it? It is a political problem that goes to the heart of our
political system. And this Senator, who has developed a reputation for claiming
that his views have a Christian basis, should, as Special Minister of State, be
initiating remedial action. He evidently believes that the Liberal Party is the
best place to make his contribution to Australia's 'Christian heritage'. So
let's not get sidetracked by his flailing of the churches and Christian critics
of his Government.
Instead, let's look a little closer. If one promotes Australia's "Christian heritage" from within the political office of Senator then one can be expected to uphold the Westminster system of parliamentary representative government. Does Senator Abetz defend the Westminster system? This question needs to be asked of all our politicians. Think back to just after the election in 2001 when it become known that the recently re-elected member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) had changed his mind on embryonic stem-cell research? Members who are elected to parliament represent and are accountable to their electorates. The policies that they adhere to during the election campaign are what the elected candidate is bound by during his/her tenure in the elected office. That's right, isn't it?
After the election, Senator Abetz was offered and accepted the portfolio of "Special Minister of State". This may have been prior to learning that the member for Bennelong, the one the Coalition confirmed as PM, had changed his mind on embryonic stem-cell research. But, when it did become known, did Senator Abetz, as "Special Minister of State" and an adherent of Christian principles, insist that the member resign his seat and submit to a re-election? And when the PM made his post COAG announcement, with the eastern state premiers, that legislation was required to allow for embryonic stem-cell research, where was Senator Abetz? Just because Labor Party state premiers were involved in this announcement does not mean that the PM was acting in accord with Westminster principles about his own election to parliament. He was not. So what was said in opposition to this?
At this point I must state that this is not the place to call for the PM's resignation over this issue. That may come over this, but not here in this Christian Radical Reflection. Here is the place to ask why the Christian senator, adherent to the Westminster parliamentary system, did not demand the PM to submit to a re-election in his electorate? This is no joke nor is it a trick. It is serious because a Senator needs to adequately inform those to whom he is accountable, namely the State of Tasmania of which he is a representative. The Senator now also needs to explain how his failure, if that is what it is, is compatible with his commitment to Christian principles, let alone his commitment to the Westminster system of rectitude in Government by the Ministers of the Crown. There is something about Senator Abetz's Christian commitment and his political views that are no longer clear. One can gain a reputation for being a "straight talking senator" (as the Salt Shaker media release presents him) but if your actions are ambiguous or if they indicate that your understanding of Christian principles is other than it seems, then do you not have a duty to explain the modification. Do we not have good reason for saying that the ignorance Senator Abetz claims is rife among church people and those Christians who criticise his party's policies in Government, is also in part generated from those elected to parliamentary office? And if we are no longer adhering to Westminster principles then we should be able to discuss this openly and not duck the issue.
In that instance, Senator Abetz, did not take a stand to defend the Christian principles he now wants us to believe he upholds. Is it the case then, that in his view, the principles of the Westminster system should be laid to one side when the circumstances require it? Is the whole system to hang on a PM changing his mind over an issue after an election? It is hard, if not impossible, to see where the 'Christian heritage' can be in that!
Later, the Special Minister of State, was to make a contribution to the parliamentary 'conscience' vote on the "No" side, opposing experimentation on 'spare' human embryos. We can ask whether he informed the Parliament, his fellow "No" voters and the public that there was an already in principle commitment to Australian embryonic stem-cell research long before the PM's COAG announcement that the country needed the legislation. How do we know that? Embryos had been imported into the Netherlands from Australia for some time, a considerable period before the PM minister changed his view, long before the parliamentary debate took place. In fact there were no import or export controls on human embryos at the time. Senator Abetz knew this. Why did he fail to make these facts into a central defining issue when he explained his "No" vote? His failure on this score meant that other "No" voters, as well the Australian public at large, were deprived of vital information that still has a central and defining significance for the public debate, now that the 2002 legislation is being reviewed.
Before Senator Abetz makes more accusations about ill-informed criticism perhaps he should reconsider his own contribution to public ignorance about these matters that he, at least, could have made known. His own claims about support for the Westminster system of parliamentary representation, in which members are truly accountable to those who elected them, would certainly seem to be a central part of the "Christian heritage" he wants to uphold. Well then, he should henceforth act decisively and unambiguously and not be so quick to jump to his own defence in matters where his own inconsistencies have contributed to the ignorance and confusion of critics he says should be better informed.
From a Christian democratic standpoint, this issue exposes the deep and serious problems we face with our system of parliamentary democracy. The biblical witness is that Jesus Christ has redeemed the entirety of our lives. Christians citizens with those like Senator Abetz, who find themselves elected to the nation's parliaments, require a Christian public philosophy that can deal with politics comprehensively, in relation to all policy areas. Without such political wisdom, all Christians, and not just prominent elected politicians, will find ourselves in vulnerable positions where we are compromised by party disciplines, by a "winner takes all" expectation in elections, by an authoritarian mode of governance and a pragmatic mass media. Christians need to find each other in order to make good their calling to form political deeds which "seek justice, love kindness and walk humbly" with the King of Kings, the Good Shepherd, whose patience prods us to fresh works worthy of our repentance.
|
September 2005 © 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 |