Ö÷²¥´óÐã

John Howard's immigration policy was neatly encapsulated by a single sound-bite. It was delivered two days before the 2001 federal election, before journalists at the National Press Club. "I yield to nobody in my determination to maintain the absolute right of Australia to decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come," he said.

The backdrop to those comments, of course, was the Tampa crisis in August, when Mr Howard dispatched Australian special forces to board a freighter at sea to block 439 mainly Afghan refugees from entering Australia's territorial waters.

The MV Tampa, a Norwegian vessel, had rescued the refugees from a distressed fishing vessel in international waters. But Alexander Downer, the then foreign affairs minister, announced that "Australia has no obligation under international law to accept the rescued into Australian waters".

Legally, Downer claimed to be applying the strict letter of international law. But it was the Howard government's moral stance that drew international criticism from human rights groups.

Afterwards, the Howard government instituted what became known as the Pacific Solution, where asylum seekers were transported to detention camps on small islands in the Pacific Ocean, Nauru and Manus Island. They were sent there whatever the merits of their claims, and whatever level of persecution they were trying to flee. The claims for asylum were processed while they were kept under lock and key.

In October that year, the asylum issue flared again when the Howard government claimed that illegal immigrants on board a vessel intercepted 100 nautical miles north of Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean had thrown children overboard - a claim a subsequent Senate inquiry found to be untrue.

In the 2001 election, John Howard's Liberal-led coalition won an increased majority. By contrast, Labor's share of the primary vote slumped to a 67-year low. John Howard's hardline stance on asylum seekers arguably won him the election. Fears about the dangers posed by foreign outsiders had already been stocked by the attacks of 9/11. These overlapping issues of national security and border security revived the government's fortunes. For much of the year, it had been trailing in the polls. Labor had been "wedged" on the question of asylum seekers.

During last year's election, Kevin Rudd promised to end the Pacific Solution, arguably a brave political stance for a party that had suffered in the past from being labelled weak on border security.

Back in February, the new Labor government made good that promise - effectively dismantling the Pacific Solution, when a group of 21 Sri Lankan asylum seekers were flown off Nauru.

Now the new Rudd government has gone further in its overhaul of asylum policy by ending the practice of jailing all asylum seekers - a mandatory policy, which in fairness to the Howard government, was instituted by the Labor government of the 1990s. Similarly, children will no longer be detained in an immigration detention centre.

The Australian government's detention centre on Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean will remain open, and the government reserves the right to detain some people arriving by boat - mainly as a deterrent to people smugglers. But, crucially, the onus will be on immigration officials to justify why they pose a risk that requires confinement.

Some will regard this as a moral corrective, similar in spirit and application to the apology to Aboriginal Australians for past injustices and the decision to ratify Kyoto. Certainly, it marks another definitive break from the recent past.

Others will claim that it has weakened Australia's border community. This was the response from Senator Chris Ellison, the opposition immigration spokesman: "We have to have a strong immigration policy and legal system which says, 'If you come to Australia and you have no right to be here then you either return from whence you came or your matter is resolved, and whilst that is being done, Australia has the right to detain you'".

Who has got it right?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Is Kevin Rudd part of the global rise of the religious left? Or, more accurately but less evocatively, is he part of the rise of the religious centre-left?

Keen observers of the Australian political scene will remember that his campaign for the leadership of the Labor Party back in December 2006 was something of a faith-based enterprise. It was achieved partly on the back of a serious-minded, 5,000-word essay in The Monthly magazine on religion in politics. In it, he spoke of his admiration for Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian who stood in defiance of the Nazis and was executed at a concentration camp in 1945 as a result.
Rudd described him as "the man I admire most in the history of the 20th Century".

He also argued that a "Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed".

Other global leaders have enunciated a similar message from the centre-left. In his book Courage, Gordon Brown also eulogised Bonhoeffer, while Barack Obama regularly ventriloquises the religious teachings of the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr (as opposed to the civil rights leader's searing critiques of white America, which he has a tendency to downplay because they blunt his "post-racial" message).

The global religious left's views on social justice are animated by their interpretation of the Bible as a social gospel.

I mention all of this because of the speech Kevin Rudd delivered in the open-air mass that launched the recent celebrations. I wonder whether a modern-day Australian prime minister has ever delivered such an overtly religious speech (any help on that front gratefully received).

His brief comments that day sound and read like a counter-blast to Richard Dawkins, the best-selling author of The God Delusion, and Christopher Hitchens, who has recently written God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Rudd offered a stout defence of the welcome place for religion in the public square.

"Some say there is no place for faith in the 21st Century. I say they are wrong. Some say that faith is the enemy of reason, I say, also they are wrong... It was the church that began first schools for the poor. It was the church that began first hospitals for the poor. It was the church that began first refuges for the poor and these great traditions continue for the future. And I say this, that Christianity has been an overwhelming force for good in the world."

For the leader of a secular nation, did Kevin Rudd go too far? Or is it only natural and entirely appropriate that Rudd's religious beliefs should find expression in his politics? And finally, the question with which I started, is he a happy standard-bearer in the global rise of the religious left?

PS Staying with religion, I've thought long and hard this week about how we reported World Youth Day, and whether we focused too much attention on the sexual abuse scandal. On reflection, I think our overall coverage was balanced. On television, radio and the website, we gave regular voice to the young Catholic pilgrims, along with their spiritual leaders, and reported on their infectious enthusiasm and impressive spectacle. Frankly, they received much more airtime than the critics. But we did report on the plight of the victims, and I firmly believe we were right to do so.

That we kept on revisiting the abuse story was largely due to the public relations of the Vatican and World Youth Day organisers. On his flight to Australia, the Pope indicated he would apologise. But doubt was cast on that by a senior Vatican spokesman later in the week who said, rather cryptically, that there was no guarantee of a verbal apology. Bishop Anthony Fisher, the co-ordinator of WYD, also kept the story in the headlines by suggesting that victims should not "dwell crankily" on old wounds (later in the week, he apologised himself).

Had the church simply announced beforehand that the Pope would apologise and meet some victims, and indicated when that would happen, the story would not have received anywhere near as much prominence. But the guessing game lasted the entire week. Even until the apology itself, the church kept reporters and the victims groups in the dark. The prepared text of the homily that Saturday morning, which was distributed to journalists, did not include the apology. His meeting with four victims chosen by the Catholic church on Monday morning was also kept a closely-guarded secret.

Many of you have already addressed this in your comments, but, as always, I'm keen to get your feedback.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

How do you measure the success of an event like ?

If it is in the enthusiasm and devotion of its participants, then the Vatican will have deemed this an enormous triumph. Waving their national flags, strumming their guitars and performing their dances, the 225,000 pilgrims have stamped their personalities and spirituality on this city. Their flame-coloured rucksacks have added .

One of the main aims of this event is to strengthen pilgrims' faith in a manner which safeguards the future of the Roman Catholic church. At the climactic papal mass, which was celebrated at Randwick racecourse in Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, Australia's most senior Catholic, spoke of how the pilgrims were "alive with evangelical energy", and how young priests were "eager to preach an ancient faith".

But the Vatican will have to wait to see if the fervour that we've seen in Sydney translates into young men applying for the priesthood or young women showing a desire to become nuns. It needs them. Here in Australia, the shortage of priests has led to the twinning of parishes.

Catholicism remains Australia's biggest religion or denomination, with almost 28% of the population describing themselves as Catholic.

If WYD is judged by its staging and spectacle, the organisers will no doubt be delighted. With Sydney providing a uniquely telegenic backdrop, pictures of staggering beauty have beamed around the world.

Certainly, the event has been intricately and extravagantly choreographed, from the arrival of the Pope on board his papal boat-cade, with his robes billowing like a spinnaker in the wind, to the Stations of the Cross, the dramatic depiction of Christ's last hours on earth, which was performed in outdoor sites around the city. Sydney and the Roman Catholic Church - both know how to put on a spectacular show.

The Pope called it "an unforgettable experience". Throughout the week, his image was beamed on to one of the stone pylons of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

So, impressive public pageantry - but what of the public atonement? Departing from the homily given to reporters ahead of time, Pope Benedict said he was "deeply sorry" for the "evil" of the involving members of the Australian Catholic priesthood.

His comments were stronger than those delivered in America in April, but he did not meet the victims of abuse, as he did in the US.

That has angered victims, who wanted to hear directly from the Pope. Broken Rites, the main victims group here, also wanted the Pope to criticise Australian bishops for what they claim has been their mishandling of the scandal.

Victims were incensed by the comments of Bishop Anthony Fisher, the World Youth Day co-ordinator, who said they should not "dwell crankily" on old wounds.

What of the demonstrations from the NoToPope coalition, protesting the Vatican's stance on birth control, homosexuality and abortion? Much of the heat was taken out of the protests when the federal court quashed special regulations brought in by the New South Wales government which threatened heavy penalties for offending the pilgrims.

Protesters lobbed a few condoms in the direction of some pilgrims, and fashioned a popemobile of their own, but the demonstrations did not amount to much.

The federal and New South Wales governments have apparently spent A$160 million ($200 million) for the event. No doubt there will be a lively public debate over the coming week about whether it was all worth it.

Thanks for all your comments on the blog earlier this week, especially from Chris Sidoti, who was quoted in the original piece. Has anything you have seen, heard or witnessed changed the way you think, or reinforced your thinking? Or, put another way, how was it all for you?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Pope in Australia. So much to talk about. So much to blog about.

I thought by now that I would be reporting on the first arrests under those highly-contentious brought in for Catholic , which threatened hefty fines for annoying or causing inconvenience to a pilgrim. They made an offence of causing offence.

Secretly, I'd rather hoped that the police would carry out a dawn raid on the surf school at Bondi that has been offering "walk on water" lessons for visiting pilgrims. But those killjoys at the federal court have spoiled all our fun, by ruling that the special laws brought in by the New South Wales parliament impinge of the right of free speech. Who would have thought it?

Then I thought about raising the intriguing question of why Australia's two foremost churchmen, Cardinal George Pell and Peter Jensen, the Anglican bishop of Sydney, are both leading lights in what some would call the fundamentalist wings of their respective churches. Both have taken staunchly traditionalist stances on pre-marital sex, homosexuality and the interpretation of the scriptures.

Archbishop Jensen was a founder of the Global Anglican Future Conference, the group which is so staunchly opposed to Gene Robinson, the Anglican communion's first openly gay bishop. Cardinal Pell has been accused of standing for "the kind of Catholicism that we saw in the Middle Ages," by no less a figure than Chris Sidoti, Australia's former human rights commissioner.

Is this mere coincidence that the two men both come from Australia, or part of this country's "conservative tradition" that I keep banging on about?

Then I thought about sharing some of the papal press coverage, which has revealed once again the fabulously irreverent streak of the Aussie media. "Benny and his Jet" was how Sydney's Daily Telegraph described the Papal flight. Channel 7 has taken to calling the papal retreat on the outskirts of Sydney his "Holy Hideaway". When the rail unions threatened a transport strike to coincide with World Youth Day, the Sydney Morning Herald came up with "Stations of the Very Cross".

But it's the headlines that arouse anger rather than amusement which are impossible to ignore. Earlier this week,that threatened to overshadow this event, but since then there have been fresh allegations against Cardinal George Pell's handling of it.

They came from Anthony Foster, whose daughters were raped repeatedly over five years by a Melbourne parish priest, Kevin O'Donnell, while they were at primary school. Emma Foster never recovered and, after years of drug abuse, committed suicide earlier this year at the age of 26. His sister, Katherine, developed a dependency on alcohol before being hit by a drunk driver and left physically and mentally disabled. She now requires 24-hour care.

Mr Foster described to how Cardinal Pell, who was then the Archbishop of Melbourne, had allegedly stalled the family's fight for compensation. Their protracted legal battle took eight years.

The main spokesman for World Youth Day, Bishop Anthony Fisher, was asked about the controversy today. His response is worth quoting in full:

"The cardinal and I were otherwise occupied last night enjoying the youth festival so we didn't see the Lateline story. All I've seen is the reports in the newspapers today.

"Happily, I think most of Australia was enjoying [and] delighting in the beauty and goodness of these young people and the hope for us doing these sorts of things better in the future, as we saw last night, rather than dwelling crankily, as a few people are doing, on old wounds."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

After all the shock associated with climate change are we beginning to experience the bore factor? Are the warnings becoming so frequent, and so very apocalyptic, that they have lost the capacity to arrest the public conscience?

Are we suffering already from "green fatigue", whereby we start treating interim, draft and final reports like white noise: something which is disturbing, even painful, but which we try to block out? Or are the warnings exaggerated?

Here in Australia the question is particularly pertinent, since the economist Ross Garnaut has just delivered his long-awaited draft report on how climate change could affect the Australian economy and outlined the case for a carbon emissions trading scheme by 2010.

Like the accomplished and politically astute economist that he is, Garnaut deployed numbers and statistics to maximum effect. If climate change went unchecked, he warned that by the end of the century:

• an extra 4,000 Queenslanders would die each year from heat-related deaths
• an extra 5.5 million Australians would contract dengue fever annually
• that the Great Barrier Reef would die
• a potential 90% reduction in water flows in the Murray-Darling river basin, which irrigates the nation's food bowl, would lead to the collapse of agricultural production.

In short, he was arguing that global warming presents an existential threat to the Australian way of life.

Judging from some early responses, these dire warnings about global warming have left many here cold. Here's Michael Costa, the treasurer of New South Wales and a senior figure in the Australian Labor Party: "Chicken Little arguments are no substitute for getting right the important details on issues of far reaching consequence... For example, claims from some quarters that the Great Barrier Reef would be destroyed if Australia, which emits less than 2% of global greenhouse gases, does not adopt an ETS [emissions trading scheme] are patent nonsense." A number of senior climatologists the science underpinning his warnings.

Then there those from what might be called the protectionist camp, who argue that the kind of broad-based emissions trading which Garnaut is advocating would be an act of economic vandalism. Here's Alan Wood, the retiring economics editor of The Australian:
"If Australia moves ahead of the rest of the world to curb carbon emissions, there will be no benefit to Australia or the world but a potentially very high cost to us."

Critics of Garnaut argue that Australia emits just 1% of world emissions, and that what it does is essentially irrelevant without concerted action from India and China. The counter-argument is that Australia's per capita emissions are the highest in the OECD, that it is the world's largest exporter of coal and, like any responsible country, it has a moral compulsion to act.

No wonder Ross Garnaut called this policy problem so very "diabolical".

Potentially it also presents a diabolical political problem for Kevin Rudd, whose government is committed to launching an emissions trading scheme by 2010. That is also the year when he is likely to face re-election.

Rudd's approval rating has already has dropped to 54%, his lowest point since the election, partly because of rising fuel costs. A further hike on the eve of the next election as a result of the introduction of an emissions trading scheme might damage him further.

Again, the alternative view is that this kind of major reform could boost him, by burnishing his green credentials and demonstrating brave leadership. A recent poll suggested that voters prefer it when Rudd focuses on big ideas and grand visions rather than scrappy, day-to-day politics.

His predecessor as prime minister also offers a useful historical lesson. At the1998 election, John Howard won respect, along with a second term in office, by campaigning for the unpopular GST sales tax.

Last November, it was fashionable, especially in the international media, to headline the federal poll the "climate change election". Given the importance of Workchoices, John Howard's unpopular labour reforms, not to mention the question of whether a 68-year-old prime minister should be granted a fifth term in office, that was surely an exaggeration. But the 2010 election could easily be lassoed with that tagline.

So will Australians then be suffering from "green fatigue"? Or will the dramatic issue of climate change infuse them with the fierce urgency of now?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Peter Garrett has so far proved a much more accomplished rock star than politician. Politics seems to confine the former lead singer of Midnight Oil, a free-wheeling presence on stage but a strangely listless figure at the dispatch box.

As a front man, the sheer physicality of his jerky dancing-style and head-banging delivery was mesmerising. As an environment minister, many complain he has lost both his voice and "mojo".

During the campaign, the Chaser team , claiming he would only speak his mind with a band playing behind him. Then, on reaching government, Garrett was forced to the side of the stage. Kevin Rudd handed the climate change portion of his shadow portfolio to Senator Penny Wong, and barred him from talking on the subject in the House of Representatives.

This week Australia's rock star politician met America's movie star politician, the California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - "Oil be back" ran the headline in the Sydney Morning Herald. But the Governator has been much more successful at transferring his star power to the political arena than the Gyrator.

I mention all this because Australian rock and roll celebrates its 50th birthday this coming weekend. The midwife, apparently, was Johnny O'Keefe, whose landmark song, The Wild One, was released on July 5, 1958. To mark this happy occasion, Midnight Oil has been adjudged by a panel of judges assembled by the to have produced Australia's number one album.

Its choice was 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1, the band's 1982 breakthrough album. Diesel and Dust, which featured the band's biggest international hit, Beds are Burning, also ranked in the top 10. As the Age notes: "If this poll is any indication, they are this country's favourite band and the most uniquely Australian." A musical variant on "Peak Oil".

Here is the top ten, by the way:

1 10-1 - Midnight Oil (1981)

2 Radios Appear - Radio Birdman (1977)

3 Living in the 70s - Skyhooks (1974)

4 Hi Fi Way - You Am I (1995)

5 Stoneage Romeos - Hoodoo Gurus (1984)

6 Gossip - Paul Kelly and the Coloured Girls (1986)

7 (I'm) Stranded - The Saints (1977)

8 Kick - INXS (1987)

9 Diesel and Dust - Midnight Oil (1987)

10 Back in Black - AC/DC (1980)

For those who do not want to wade through the entire top 50, I can report that no former Neighbours' stars appears in it. (Is it mean to add the word "thankfully" to that sentence?) More controversial is the omission of the Bee Gees or Men at Work. Rolf Harris, who this week was inducted into the ARIA musical hall of fame, does not make it either.And poor old Johnny O'Keefe doesn't make the cut, despite holding the Australian record of 29 Top 40 hits. But, then, singles were all the rage during the Menzies era rather than albums.

So Midnight Oil is the best Australian band of the past fifty years. And uniquely Australian. Fair dinkum?

PS: Another cheesy headline of the week, again from the subs desk of the Sydney Morning Herald. This one announced the marriage of golfer Greg Norman to the tennis great, Chris Evert: "Norman gets his birdie".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?