The Real Issues Of The 2016 Australian Federal Election!

The Real Issues Of The 2016 Australian Federal Election!

“Lewis believed democracy to be the best form of government, not because men are so good they should share in government but because fallen men are so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows.”
C. S. Lewis: Defender of the Faith: Defender of the Faith, Richard B. Cunningham 

C.S. Lewis also once famously said that democracy is not the best form of government – but it’s the best one we have! In Australia we have been enduring an election campaign that has gone on for nearly eight weeks, which is a little unusual for Australia. But spare a thought for our American cousins who have had what appears to be an election circus going on for months now and still has months to go! On Saturday July 2, Australian voters go to the Polls and whatever the outcome, it will have huge ramifications for our future and be a temperature-taking moment for where Australian sentiments currently lie.

I, like many others, attended the local ACL candidate forum where each of the main parties had a representative sharing and defending their views. I was upset and disturbed by most of what I heard. From the outset, I need to state that I am not a member of a political party (nor have I been). Thus, my comments are not beholden to any Party’s agenda. There’s three broad categories of concerns that deeply trouble me about this current election and the political climate. These are-

(i) What each of the Parties claim are the main issues for the Federal Government to address

(ii) How each of the Parties propose to address their idea of the main issues

(iii) What the main issues really are!

“Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.”
Winston Churchill, 1947

(i) What each of the Parties claim are the main issues for the Federal Government to address

The Liberal-National Party present the economy as the main issue. By ‘economy’ the Liberals mean that Government spending should not exceed Government income, foreign debt should be paid off, and the taxation system should be fair but able to provide incentives for business and industry to grow and employ more people. Their slogan is, “Back our plan for a strong new economy.” The Liberals will hold a Plebiscite on Same-Sex Marriage before the end of the year. 

The Labor Party present health and education as the main issue. They have majored on the preservation of Medicare as a key issue. Their 2016 slogan is, “We’ll put people first.” Many of their ads have highlighted the Liberal Government’s spending cuts to health and education and their intention to restore this funding. Labor has promised to introduce Same-Sex Marriage within the first one hundred days of their election to government.  

The Greens Party present the climate and fairness as the main issues. Their slogan is Standing up for what matters. They want to promote renewable energy which will contribute to the reduction of Global Warming, and they want to end off-shore asylum-seeker detention. Their taxation policy includes increasing the company tax rate. The Greens are committed to introducing Same-Sex Marriage.   

.

(ii) How each of the Parties propose to address their idea of the main issues

The Liberal-National Party claim that they will bring the Federal Budget back into surplus and eliminate the national debt. They claim this can be done without increasing taxation and by curtailing Government spending. The Liberals claim that Australia’s national debt costs fifteen billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) a year in interest. If this debt could be eliminated, it is claimed that it would allow for increased spending on such things as health and education. 

The Labor Party claim that they will bring the Federal Budget back into surplus and eliminate the national debt within ten years. They also claim that they can increase spending on health and education. 

The Greens Party claim that Federal Budget deficits serve the national interest because they ensure that essential services can be provided for. The Greens want to introduce a Carbon Tax and incentives to transition to renewable energy. They would also close all detention centres and increase refugee/asylum-seeker intakes.

*I apologise to all the other Political Parties for not including a summary of their positions.

.

  (iii) What the main issues really are!

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
Proverbs 14:34

It seems to me that each of the Parties have identified at least some of the important issues facing Australia, but have, perhaps, failed to recognise the preeminent ones. 

THE ROLE OF ANY GOVERNMENT
The role of Government is to uphold justice, promote the welfare of its citizens, provide common defence, and maintain the blessings of liberty. But it seems that we have come to expect a lot more from our governments today. I am surprised by how the question, “What is the government going to do about this?” is applied today. For example: education. But I’m not nearly as surprised by politicians who make commitments to do things on behalf of a government that were never considered the role of government – such as: ‘middle-class’ or ‘corporate’ welfare, introducing ‘taking offence’ laws – and no-one seems to question this very idea! 

THE TWO MOST PRESSING ISSUES
On two occasions throughout this 2016 Federal election campaign did two of the most pressing issues facing Australia get a mention. As important as the economy is, these issues are infinitely more important than how wealth is created and distributed. In fact, I would like to make the case that the issue of the welfare of the vulnerable is a profound economic factor on our nation – at least because it reveals the ‘moral temperature’ of our nation. When any nation’s moral compass is distorted by the magnetism of personal interest over national interest (which is a form of immorality known as ‘Moral Relativism’) it is economically doomed! Greece is a tragic recent example of this where its citizens voted for massive Government spending increases which gave them each a pension from the age of 55 which was annually many times their final year’s salary! 

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.
Proverbs 14:12

The two moments in this election campaign when both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were caught off guard occurred when the plight of the vulnerable was exposed to the media's glare. The first instance was early in the campaigning while the second happened last week. Bill Shorten was asked a question by a 19 year-old girl in Woy Woy (NSW) about his Party’s priority regarding suicide prevention in Australia. Initially he seemed to dismiss the question as a bit of a left-field issue. He then turned to his town-hall audience and asked them if any of them had been affected by suicide. In this YouTube clip you can see how caught off guard he was with their response.

Suicide rates in Australia have risen 20% between 2004 – 2014
(source: Former Mental Health Advisory Chief Adjunct Professor John Mendoza, 2016)

In response to this moment, Mr Shorten has committed his party to trialling 12 pilot programs around Australia to address mental health and suicide. This is commendable. But unfortunately it misses a very big point. At the heart of why Australians are despairing, and consequently taking their lives, is the cultural promotion by successive governments of moral-relativism (that we each determine what is right and wrong because there is no external/objective, point of reference). The removal of objectivism (that we draw our morals and values from an Absolute Standard) from the Australian psyche by nearly all sides of politics has been subtle and largely unchallenged. It has dire consequences though.

Suicide rate in Australia – 2009-2012

Not only has the term secular (which has always meant ‘non-religious’) come to be synonymous with moral-relativism it has been unquestionably redefined as ‘anti-religious’. And this is what moral-relativism does: It continually redefines everything. By its very nature it has no choice but to do so – because it is not grounded in anything fixed, such as God. Rather, it is subject to personal whims. It is almost the perfect Trojan Idea-Horse of our day. Rather than aggressively invading culture with its non-sense it has instead dressed itself as a beautiful, creative, appealing, artful centre-piece of culture – just as the ancient Macedonians were able to do to the unsuspecting citizens of Troy. And like the unsuspecting Trojans, one thing inevitably leads to another and then ultimately to their greatest detriment. This is what moral-relativism will do, and can only do, to any culture!

When everything about our culture tells its citizens that there is no fixed reference point for right or wrong, true or false, good or bad, purpose or meaninglessness, is it any wonder that its most vulnerable citizens think there is no point to living?  

 The thief’s purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life.
John 10:10

The second moment in this campaign happened when Prime Minister Turnbull was asked by a Queensland female medical student, Ashley, about the plight of the dozens of abortion survivors who are left to die after they are born. These unwanted babies, who are aborted ‘late-term’ (after 5 months in the womb) who somehow survived these attempts to abort them are left to die as they impulsively cry for nurture.

Video Player

00:00

02:39

You don’t have to be religious to be deeply concerned about the plight of our most vulnerable citizens – those who are suicidal and those who are utterly defenceless against those who seek to take their lives. At the recent electorate candidate forum I was greatly grieved to hear the Liberal candidate say that the latter should be “safe, legal and rare”. I was upset when the Labor candidate said that it was a woman’s right. I was disappointed that the Greens candidate said it was a woman’s body and she had a right to do to it whatever she wanted. I restrained myself from asking them about the analogy of an owner of an apartment building who owned the building and its land freehold (without a mortgage), and wanted to demolish it with explosives, even though it was known that there was someone in their building at the time. Even though they owned the building, do they still have the right to demolish it even there was someone alive inside it at the time? We need to remember that a pregnant mother hosts another being who possesses distinct DNA, a distinct blood type, measurable brain-waves from ten weeks after conception, and independent movement, from its mother!

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
Luke 1:41

.

Has Australia Succumbed To The Trojan Horse Of Moral-Relativism?

Moral-relativism distorts the way a culture can think clearly about issues. This is why the issue of Same-Sex Marriage is so telling.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools
Romans 1:20-22

I am flabbergasted at the ‘logic’ used to promote this radical moral-relativism. Because I understand the nature of Trojan Idea-Horses, I am far less flabbergasted than most at the response of those inside, or aligned to, the Trojan Idea-Horse when they exhibit scandalised mockery toward to those who dare stand up to it. Their ironic moral disgust toward anyone who dares believes differently to their opinion – that everyone’s opinion is equally correct – would ordinarily be labelled as illogical if it wasn’t for the fact that moral-relativism celebrates the illogical. They have cleverly brought in their moral-relativism in the form of an Idealogical Trojan Horse which has been draped with completely disconnected words such as love, equality, justice. 

Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job because they were older than he. And when Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, he burned with anger. 
¶ And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said:
“I am young in years,
and you are aged;
therefore I was timid and afraid
to declare my opinion to you.
Job 32:4-6

Like Elihu in the Book of Job, I simply expected my senior colleagues within the Church, who have impressive titles of national honour, to have pointed out the obvious and glaring flaws in such Trojan propositions before these illogical ideas could gain entrance into the centre of the Town Square. But no. I expected that someone, somewhere, with a national voice, would have pointed out that marriage is not, was not, never was, about bestowing social standing to a couple. But no-one has. I expected that someone, somewhere, with a national voice would have pointed out that love is not the reason or the prerequisite for a couple to marry (“love” does not occur anywhere in the Marriage Act). This would of course mute the appeal that if two people love each other, they should have the right to marry. Putting aside the false notion that marriage is a right, and addressing the equally absurd notion that “love” is the only criteria for marriage, why hasn’t anyone asked whether “love” will be the new and sole prerequisite for marriage with the proposed introduction of same-sex marriage? I’d be very curious how I as a Marriage Celebrant will be required to test/prove/demonstrate this criteria is met in order for a marriage to proceed. Presently, the prerequisites for marriage are clear, as any Marriage Celebrant is required to check, and include –

• Complementary Gender (everyone in Australia is treated equally by insisting that since marriage is the union of one man with one woman voluntarily entered into for life for the purpose of having or raising children where possible, it is necessary that this unique relationship necessarily be between a man and a woman)
• Appropriate Relationship (a marriage cannot be between a parent and child, or between siblings)
• Attained Age (the individuals forming the marriage union must be at least 18 years old. It would be inappropriate for 6 year olds to marry.)
• Identifiable Person (one of the final Statutory Declarations a couple signs before proceeding with their marriage has as its opening declaration, “I am a person”. A person can not marry their pet, their favourite tree, their football club, or their car.)
• Eligible Status (a person must be eligible to marry, that is, legally single and not already married)

(This mandatory criteria form the acronym, “G.R.A.P.E.”)

Added to these facts, which justly apply to every Australian equally, I expected that someone would point out that not only do these 5 criteria apply to every Australian equally, but that they can only to individuals – and never to couples. That is, marriage is not the recognition of a couple – it does not bestow status to a couple – it changes the status of an individual. If this was just pointed out, so many of the arguments for same-sex marriage – about giving same-gender couples equal recognition – would never go unchallenged, because more people would be able to immediately point out that that is not what marriage does now, and neither can it. Thus, when I hear a political candidate claim that marriage is all about “love” (when in fact it is about the commitment between a man and woman that best environs the having and/or raising of children where possible), or that it is about giving equal status to same-gendered couples (when marriage is not about the status of any couple!), and that same-sex marriage legislation is necessary to address the abnormally high mental-health issues and suicide-rates among the LGBT communities (when in fact, wherever same-sex marriage legislation has been introduced, there has been no such expected improvement and in many cases it has actually got worse). And again, sadly, no national Church leader seems to have pointed these facts out to these unqualified politicians.

The Christian’s defence of the uniqueness of marriage is not narrow-minded bigotry, or hatred toward same-sex attracted people. The ache that same-sex attracted people feel cannot be soothed by same-sex marriage (as the evidence clearly shows). Thus, the idea of Same-Sex Marriage is really a Same-Sex Mirage! The Christian agrees with Jesus Christ who defined marriage very clearly – 

He (Jesus) answered, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Matthew 19:4-5 

If the role of government is to uphold the welfare of its citizens, it cannot in good conscience support that which harms them, which these two pressing issues clearly do. Yes, we want our government to be economically responsible and minimise wasteful spending, to tax fairly, and distribute resources to those less fortunate. But we also need the government to acknowledge that it plays a significant role in shaping our culture and its values, which in turn have a direct bearing on the welfare of people. Arguably, national interest is best served when a government supports and promotes the family unit – rather than undermining it. It would then be going a long to addressing our most critical economic and social issues including: family breakdown, divorce, domestic violence, pedophilia, teen pregnancies, homelessness, illicit drug abuse, suicide, mental-health, education, and health. This election, please consider whether the candidate you are voting for is prepared to acknowledge and address these most serious welfare issues.    

Ps. Andrew Corbett