This is not going to be an essay about who should be leading the Coalition. Nor is it going to be about my personal views on Liberal of National party policies.
If you have been even vaguely politically aware in that last week, you will know that there is a leadership question hanging over the Coalition, driven (in theory, at least) about the current leader's position on KRudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). The CPRS is not going to be the focus of this essay.
Rather, I want to look at what this one piece of legislation seems to be doing to the Coalition.
At the moment, it appears that the Coalition are so busy expending their energies tearing each other to shreds than actually forming a cogent opposing argument to Labor policies. In short, I believe that the Coalition (especially the Liberal party) are failing in their role as the opposition.
There seems to have been more mention of the Coalition leadership dramas in the media than of the actual content of the CPRS. This is borderline criminal. The CPRS is a major piece of legislation that deserves a true discussion between the Government and Opposition. The infighting is damaging any credibility to criticise Government policies, and damaging the party's credibility in general.
The Coalition needs to be able to function as a true opposition. Elect who you want, ladies and gentlemen, but don't sell the public short. We deserve better than the petty infighting that is crowding the airwaves, the web and the papers.
- Amy
Friday, November 27, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
..."did you write the book of love; and do you have faith in God above; if the Bible tells you so"
(With apologies to Don McLean)
Reading Crikey again this morning I saw that Fred Nile, everyone's favourite Australian Evangelical *ahem* nutjob, has sent out a survey to the people of Bradfield. Bradfield is Nelson's old seat, and there will be a byelection there on the 5th. It's a inner suburban seat, in the Upper North Shore of Sydney.
Check out the survey.
It is a lesson on how not to structure questions on a poll. The questions are a prime example of push polling at its crudest.
Additionally, some of the CDP's policies seem to be against the law. For example, "[p]riority should be given to refugee applicants who are...being persecuted for their Christian faith", and "CDP proposes a 10 year moratorium on Islamic immigration as starting point for a serious national discussion on this issue". As I understand it, it is illegal to prioritise, or penalise, immigrants on the basis of their religion (would be interested if someone could give me exact ref for this one).
As a Green, I also object to the use of the term "Greenie" in the alleged poll. The Greens would get in serious trouble if they published a document in which the CDP's supporters and MPs were referred to as "right-wing nut-job howl-at-the-moon Jesus-freaks". The standard should be equal.
- Amy
Reading Crikey again this morning I saw that Fred Nile, everyone's favourite Australian Evangelical *ahem* nutjob, has sent out a survey to the people of Bradfield. Bradfield is Nelson's old seat, and there will be a byelection there on the 5th. It's a inner suburban seat, in the Upper North Shore of Sydney.
Check out the survey.
It is a lesson on how not to structure questions on a poll. The questions are a prime example of push polling at its crudest.
Additionally, some of the CDP's policies seem to be against the law. For example, "[p]riority should be given to refugee applicants who are...being persecuted for their Christian faith", and "CDP proposes a 10 year moratorium on Islamic immigration as starting point for a serious national discussion on this issue". As I understand it, it is illegal to prioritise, or penalise, immigrants on the basis of their religion (would be interested if someone could give me exact ref for this one).
As a Green, I also object to the use of the term "Greenie" in the alleged poll. The Greens would get in serious trouble if they published a document in which the CDP's supporters and MPs were referred to as "right-wing nut-job howl-at-the-moon Jesus-freaks". The standard should be equal.
- Amy
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Some answers
Okay.
Done some digging.
Apparently, federal laws always overrule state laws.
The National School Chaplaincy Programme was launched in an address by the GG on 23rd April, 2007. According to the (then) GG, "as we contemplate the total order, beauty and harmony of the universe, it seems to have all the hallmarks of some greater being or force responsible for, and in total control of it".
With all due respect, was the GG a physicist or astronomer? Anyone even vaguely qualified to comment on the universe?
Additionally, "...unlike plants and animals, whose biological growth is guided and controlled by the laws of nature, man I suggest has been given something else - a special quality, a divine spark which makes us different, animates us and, I would suggest, underpins our values".
So the then GG denies that evolution can shape complex behaviours such as morality. I know of an evolutionary psychologist or two that would disagree.
Hypothetically, how would a science teacher teach evolution in an environment in which the school chaplain has spoken again the applicability of evolutionary principles to the study of humans?
Also, there have been some funding increases since the institution of the Programme. According to the information available from the '07-'08 Budget (need to get newer numbers, I know) the Programme has been allocated some additional funding: 07-08 11.5$m; 08-09 24.3$m; 09-10 34.3$m; 10-11 5.0$m.
And to end, a quote from the former GG:
"I think it borders on the tragic, that young people might live their whole lives without an opportunity to participate in a faith that promises resurrection after death to a new and greater life with an eternal dimension. And that in part, is why the school chaplain is so important."
- Amy
Done some digging.
Apparently, federal laws always overrule state laws.
The National School Chaplaincy Programme was launched in an address by the GG on 23rd April, 2007. According to the (then) GG, "as we contemplate the total order, beauty and harmony of the universe, it seems to have all the hallmarks of some greater being or force responsible for, and in total control of it".
With all due respect, was the GG a physicist or astronomer? Anyone even vaguely qualified to comment on the universe?
Additionally, "...unlike plants and animals, whose biological growth is guided and controlled by the laws of nature, man I suggest has been given something else - a special quality, a divine spark which makes us different, animates us and, I would suggest, underpins our values".
So the then GG denies that evolution can shape complex behaviours such as morality. I know of an evolutionary psychologist or two that would disagree.
Hypothetically, how would a science teacher teach evolution in an environment in which the school chaplain has spoken again the applicability of evolutionary principles to the study of humans?
Also, there have been some funding increases since the institution of the Programme. According to the information available from the '07-'08 Budget (need to get newer numbers, I know) the Programme has been allocated some additional funding: 07-08 11.5$m; 08-09 24.3$m; 09-10 34.3$m; 10-11 5.0$m.
And to end, a quote from the former GG:
"I think it borders on the tragic, that young people might live their whole lives without an opportunity to participate in a faith that promises resurrection after death to a new and greater life with an eternal dimension. And that in part, is why the school chaplain is so important."
- Amy
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Quick question...
Something interesting happened today. Was checking Crikey for links to any news stories I might find interesting, when I noticed on their Pollie Twitter feed that the man himself, KRudd, had promised funding in the future for the National School Chaplaincy Programme (check it out on http://twitter.com/KevinRuddPM).
As an atheist interested in how religion works within a supposedly secular political system, I decided to check it out.
Having googled it, I found that I was not given access to the official government website for the programme: www.dest.gov.au/schools/chaplains.
I found another link to the official pamphlet for the programme.
According to this source, over 90 million dollars over three years is available to schools who want to apply for funds so they can appoint a chaplain. Both state and independent schools are able to apply for these funds.
Given that there is a clause in the Education and Training Reform Act (Victoria) which states that “education in Government schools be secular”, how can the Federal Government provide funds for a religious presence in Government schools?
If anyone knows more about politics than I do (incredibly likely), could they please let me know how the Federal Government gets around the state laws on this matter? I've been reliably assured that the other states have secular provisions in their educational laws, in similar language to the Victorian Act.
Food for thought.
- Amy
As an atheist interested in how religion works within a supposedly secular political system, I decided to check it out.
Having googled it, I found that I was not given access to the official government website for the programme: www.dest.gov.au/schools/chaplains.
I found another link to the official pamphlet for the programme.
According to this source, over 90 million dollars over three years is available to schools who want to apply for funds so they can appoint a chaplain. Both state and independent schools are able to apply for these funds.
Given that there is a clause in the Education and Training Reform Act (Victoria) which states that “education in Government schools be secular”, how can the Federal Government provide funds for a religious presence in Government schools?
If anyone knows more about politics than I do (incredibly likely), could they please let me know how the Federal Government gets around the state laws on this matter? I've been reliably assured that the other states have secular provisions in their educational laws, in similar language to the Victorian Act.
Food for thought.
- Amy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)