Voting In September 2013

How will you vote this year in the forthcoming  September Federal election? What criteria will you use to decide who to vote for and what are the crucial issues that will determine your vote?  If the polls are a reliable guideline Australians have already made up their minds which way they will vote and the likely outcome is an Abbot lead coalition. It appears that the posturing and lobbying , the rolling out of new policies by either side of politics  will have little if any influence on how we will vote.  A  commitment to the common good and issues of justice and concern for those most in need rate only as side stories and not fully debated within the public space and as being crucial to defining who we are as a nation and our hopes for the future.  Day by day media comments by those who call themselves political analysts , the Federal Press gallery included,  often  present our polticians as entertainment reporting their comments in a demeaning way and coloured by the journalists own political leanings. Others report with minimal details leaving the listener or viewer unsure or even confused about the  issue. Headlines that do not reflect an accurate account of the policy outlined and are sensational lack integrity.

Few  journalists attempt  to evaluate and analyse policies with out an already predetermined  position  nor  seem to understand the complexity of political life and the many competing demands that politicians face in responding to the ethical, social and economic  challenges  of the day. If they do, they ignore many of these issues and instead continue to  offer  to the public limited factual news and more opinion. Many newspaper and media editors, proprietors and journalists all appear to believe they know what is best for our society and how  to achieve it, often denouncing the advice and knowledge of experts with  their own idealogical viewpoint without substance. For the average voter  the challenge is to sift  through the mountain of commentary and to decide that which is helpful and to discard the rest.

  Recent comments by senior corporate  bankers and retail giants that suggest that caring for the disabled and poor is something we cannot afford at the present  and who are opposed to any form of tax increase , while they themselves draw large salaries, is a disturbing trend and suggests a growing divide between the haves and have nots. Wealth is increasingly capturing the public and political debates necessary for a healthy democracy. while less well resourced and community groups struggle for space and time in the media. Economic justice for all , where the common wealth is shared among all Australians has become unpopular among the  new elite of the nation. 

For the average voter what  then can we use as the criteria or guidelines to decide how we vote.?Self interest or pragmatism is one and a voice for the common good another  Vote we must because men and women of times before us have fought for our freedom and our right to participate, to govern ourselves for all Australians.  Not to vote at all is not an option and also a statement that we are not responsible for the state of the nation.

 Politicians alone are not responsible for the lack of good public debate. We all have a role to play. Increasingly many voices are now calling for attention to core values as the basis for sound public policy that does does not support  self interest. Issues  of climate change  affecting the life of the planet and its inhabitants is not a matter of opinion but fact. The plight of refuges and asylum seekers is not a problem but the cry of displaced and exploited people.  The place of work is not only about earning an income and  paying as little as possible for labour but also about identity and hope. The values of honesty, transparency, compassion justice and mercy are not to be seen as added extras and only important when you are caught or  in extreme emergencies.  Social cohesion may be at risk in Australia if we do not set aside ideology for the sake of me rather than embrace policies for the we.

Australia has a stable democracy the envy of many nations. The challenge for us is to preserve it for the future and not let ourselves be captured by an elite that puts self before all. 

The role of the media - a reflection

Holiday time gives you the opportunity to take things a little slower and to read newspapers, journal articles, social media and books more thoughtfully. Reading one of Melbourne’s daily newspapers during this time alerted me to the fact that journalism and reporting is on the decline. It was apparent that some stories were run day after day in a slightly different form and new news was thin on the ground, as we say. Headlines bore little resemblance to the content of the articles.  The range of opinion writers during this time and their contributions to their subject matter left a great deal unsaid or not well understood.  Lindsay Tanner spoke in a similar fashion about the media in his book Sideshow: dumbing down democracy, when he stated what many across the country had been thinking for a number of years, that the media had reached an all-time low with debates trivialised and often reframed as entertainment. Many journalists are now writing opinion pieces that seem to reflect their own ideology or political bias. Editors appear to like the smart headline or pander to perceived public opinion.  The retrenchment of many seasoned journalists is now reflected in the written word.  Thankfully, this did not apply to the crossword during the holiday season; otherwise I may have cancelled my subscription permanently. Despite all, the media organisation that publishes my chosen paper assures the reader of quality reporting for 2013.

In a democracy we all want newspapers and the media in whatever form, including social media, to be a free press and not subject to state interference, censorship or control.  Likewise media ownership should not dictate what the media publishes, and, as with government, should not exercise censorship or control that favours certain agendas or causes that suit their owners. In a democracy the need is also to ensure that the media acts responsibly and in the interest of the public or common good, reflecting the values and aspirations of a civilised community that is concerned for the life of all its members, rich and poor, born locally or arrived from other shores. Where this line is transgressed or trivialised, ignored or abused, there needs to be some form of public recourse to amend and redress false or inaccurate claims or the abuse of privacy.  The media in whatever form has a privileged and important role in a democracy in reporting and analysing public policy, corporate activities, and community organisations including churches, synagogues and mosques, but in doing so it is not above the law, and like the medical and the legal professions, to name just two, some form of regulation or oversight is necessary in our increasingly complex society of today. The media must also critique and evaluate its own performance and ask whether a non-elected individual or organisation has the right to decide the future direction or behaviour of a community. Hasty judgements, sensational reporting for its own sake and engaging in partisan reporting should be avoided and replaced with factual reporting. Opinions should be restricted to the opinion pages and be clearly identified. While the media should be entitled to express a view it must also be aware that it is only one voice in shaping and forming what values our society should embrace and not set itself up as the sole voice.

The real question is what sort of and to what extent regulation by the state is necessary or desirable? Recent events suggest that the time has come for new thinking on the matter.  The whole community has been seduced into participating in the charade that is called news reporting. The Leveson inquiry in the UK exposed many shortcomings in the media with one-sided reporting, phone-tapping, abuse of privilege at the highest level, close personal relationships between politicians and corporate leaders seeking government contracts, and the promotion of views to shift public opinion to reflect a particular ideology. A case in point here in Australia has been the manner in which the mining industry has sought to defend itself against the federal government’s mining tax. Self-interest and profits have now become the number one priority, rather than the common good. Further it appears that cheap personal shots and guilt by innuendo are favoured over factual news reporting.  The values of honesty, integrity, fairness and concern for the common or public good are of lesser importance.

 Any form of statutory regulation being considered needs to guarantee the independence of editors and journalists from owners and shareholders, so they are free to report without fear or favour, but with evidence and balance. Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is not unconditional.  In a democracy, freedom of the press means freedom to act within the law, which includes laws against defamation; truth and accuracy in advertising; freedom from invading personal privacy; and ownership of intellectual property. In any new form of regulation the media must be required to separate evidence from personal opinion. Citing reference material should also be considered.

All who have the public interest at heart should reflect on the state of our media and demand higher standards as well as legislative control. Appropriate laws should be used to ensure media responsibility and to inform the social responsibility media organisations have in a democracy. The Australian Government has the responsibility to ensure that if existing legislation is vague or lacking enforcement then other measures should be publicly debated and legislated to protect the rights of all individuals and to ensure a balanced and responsible media committed to the common good and not to sectional interests or powerful individuals.


Dr. Ray Cleary

26^th March 2013

Beloved Father – Beloved Son

Book Review: Beloved Father – Beloved Son

by Graeme Rutherford and Jonathan Rutherford


Beloved Father – Beloved Son is the title of a recent book published by Mosaic Books of a conversation about faith and belief between a Bishop, Graeme Rutherford and his atheist son John. It is a remarkable book for its courage and clear presentation of ideas, beliefs and honesty by both father and son. I reflected on the book as a priest and father of three children myself. One who remains active and involved in the Anglican Church, while not without frustrations, questions and hope. Another who has converted to Judaism and the third who remains ambivalent. All have been raised in a family where going to church was a way of life, the existence God a foundation belief and who were encouraged to think outside the box, to take responsibility for their own lives and to seek after justice as a core outcome of faith.

The conversation in this book is of the highest level, with no ridicule or abuse associated with the dialogue. Both are well read and respect the position and ideas of the other seriously and with integrity. Not only are their respective thoughts and positions discussed as serious ideas but also there is a strong element of the personal and intimate in their words. This does not mean that challenge and criticism is avoided.  The discussion moves from the realm of theory and academia into the intimacy of family life and the struggles that many family members today are engaged with as they seek to find meaningful and fulfilling lives.  This is an important element of the book and adds to its meaningfulness as a good read. I found myself on both sides of the debate at times and enjoying the intellectual rigour that went side by side with the respect and love each had for the other. It further resonated with me as a reminder of recent discussions I had with my own children and to acknowledge how well read they are and their decisions about faith and belief are a result not of apathy but an informed decision. As I read the book I found myself yearning for this level of discussion in the wider church on the important social, ethical and economic issues of our times in addressing them, and showing the same level of respect and integrity Graeme and Jonathan show towards each other.  The same of course may be asked of our political leaders. Serious discussion on many of the life and death issues of our times facing the global community are often reduced to ideology, economics and ill informed opinion.

This book is not about creating drama and tension between a believer and an unbeliever. It has none of the Catherine Deveney self-righteous and mocking platitudes. Nor does it have the combative style of the new atheist movement. It takes seriously the complex issues challenging Christian faith  in today’s world.

I commend the book to all who are interested in growing their own faith or who want to examine the claims of those who deny belief in God. Like me I am sure it will challenge and may even provoke you to further theological study.

The Dumbing Down of Public Discourse

At the heart of a healthy, vigorous and robust democracy in Australia is the Parliament elected by the people to govern and to represent the best interests of the nation. Central to the life and work of the parliament is a belief in the principles of law, respect for the individual and concern for the common good. In recent years the parliament of Australia, or perhaps more accurately the political process, and the behaviour of politicians alongside other institutions like the professions and the Church have come under increased media attention and public scrutiny. Many recent debates in the parliament have been no more than personal attacks on the integrity of individuals at the expense of serious debate on the economy and a future vision for Australia. One-liners, smart slogans and sound bites are no substitute for serious discussion on the nation’s future. At the same time the level of public discourse has taken on more of a “slanging match style” rather than open conversation and dialogue.  Increasingly, politicians appear to be poll-driven and lack the courage and leadership required to make unpopular decisions for the common good. One exception to this in recent days has been the decision of the Federal Treasurer to abandon the Government’s commitment to a surplus budget.  The same courage cannot be seen on the matter of boat people and asylum seekers.  Politicians themselves are not only to blame for the state of public discourse.  Following the Treasurer’s announcement on the budget, the Melbourne Age headline read “Treasurer Dumps Surplus”, with implied criticism of government failure despite the fact that both business and economists applauded the decision as the right one for the times. Recently, the ABC’s Q&A has seen cheap shots by Catherine Deveney, designed to gain audience approval at the expense of Peter Jensen, while on a previous occasion the discussion between George Pell and Richard Dawkins left most viewers wondering about the motives of the show’s producers. When Jensen tried to make serious comment on matters raised, Deveney pandered to the audience rather than responding with rational and intelligent debate. Controversy, not substance, seems to have become the objective of much journalism with information increasingly being seen as entertainment.

The mainstream media regularly talks about the role they play in a democracy and no one who cherishes and believes fully in the freedom of the press would want to see this freedom banished. However, this same media cannot claim this role with biased reporting and journalism that lacks substance by presenting the views they support strongly while alternative ideas or evidence are ignored or only briefly mentioned.  The media‘s own view should be limited to the editorial and not the content of articles. Opinion pieces should be presented by a greater variety of writers and commentators.  The growth in continuous TV news coverage and the steady decline in print journalism is contributing to this. As there are fewer and fewer journalists, factual research is being replaced with press releases often without question and the parroting of interest group views. In place of an expert journalist and one competent in analysing competing viewpoints to get the truth the media is increasingly hiding behind popular and often simplistic public views.   Media personalities who depend on shock tactics and scandal for their daily following on the airwaves should have no place in the political process or in matters of public concern. Growing support for social media as a way forward in addressing and improving the level of public discourse is gaining support, but this medium is also liable to scorn and unsavoury tactics in reporting as much as the mainstream media. Opinions are all very well, but opinions need to be based on facts, rather than perceptions and innuendo.  Social media is as much a problem here as a potential solution. It simply amplifies the number of uninformed opinions that then feed of each other in a classic feedback loop. It is still no substitute for proper research by expert journalists or analysts.

Unfortunately, there are some in the church who want to suppress free and open discussion on issues affecting the community and matters of faith.  They argue for a single view or so-called authentic or orthodox viewpoint on Christianity to be expressed in diocesan media, and wish to deny to those who have other thoughts an opportunity to share them. There have been numerous examples in recent times of comments that have been inflammatory, discourteous, lacking substance or rude posted on social media about individuals, including the retiring Archbishop of Canterbury, that place the Church in a poor light.  Christians or people of other faiths do not have an automatic right to criticise others for poor discussion and dialogue when they embark on the same path themselves.  Christians, as with all citizens, have a duty to lift the level of public discussion and we need to remind ourselves of the important role that the churches have played in shaping and informing our civil society.  Love, embracing justice, is at the core of God’s grace and our dialogue and discussion must always be open to the disturbing and even radical spirit of our calling for the time in which we live. The right behaviour we expect of others in public discourse must also be enshrined in our own. As The Age (Melbourne) editorial concluded on New Year’s Day:  “Australia needs people of strategic vision who will rise above petty arguments, the kind of people who are brave, compassionate and steadfast, who reach across political and social chasms to negotiate agreements because they want a stronger community”.

Christians have an obligation to respond to the challenge to ensure our internal and public discourse is of the highest standard and devoid of cheap shots and personal attacks.

Advent - Christmas Message 2012

The sound of Christmas carols, the advent of parties to celebrate the end of the year and the rush to complete work by Christmas seems to come around more quickly each year .The Christian season of Advent is a time of waiting, reflecting and preparing for the birth of the Christ child, even among the many different expressions of what Christmas means in Australia today. To help me focus on the Christian meaning of Christmas, I have been reading each day from a collection of reflections by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. They were written from his prison cell, a condemned man who challenged the Nazi regime in Germany and yet a hopeful man as his reflections demonstrate. He prayed continually, “May your Kingdom come”. His words resonate with me at this time with ongoing conflicts in many parts of the world where innocent men, women and children suffer as a result of war, terrorism, political failure and natural disasters. They resonate with me as I reflect on the 40 million asylum seekers, refugees and boat people who are without a homeland, and the 2 million children without an identity or birth certificate.

Bonhoeffer speaks about faith as being more important than the trappings of religion that God is regularly to be found among those in need whom others despise, reject or ignore. The strength of faith and belief in the Christ child is to be found in our frailty, vulnerability and weakness.

As the days and years pass, ritual and the trappings of religion associated with Christmas seem less important to me and I wait for the simplicity of worship in the days after. The carol singing, the decorations, the family gatherings all have a place, but not at the expense of the wonder of the mystery of Christmas, of God coming among us as a human child, born into conflict, poverty and tragedy for many. This is the stark reality of Christmas and we continue to mask it with sentimentality, ritual and family celebrations, often with just a passing concern or donation to our favourite charity for the homeless, broken and hurting people of the world.

All that is Christmas comes from God. The divine comes among us as a baby, a sign of hope and possibility. Christmas now, of course, means different things to different people, but for people of Christian faith it is a reminder of the mystery of the child among us who calls us to new horizons, to think not of ourselves but of others, and to continue to name and challenge the forces of darkness that destroy and exploit. 

Yes, let us have our carols and family gatherings, remembering that at the centre of our gatherings is the child. Let us remember, too, those from whom we are separated and all who this Christmas will see nothing to celebrate. 

Canon Dr Ray Cleary

International Forum for Child Welfare

Naples Italy 26^th-29^th November

The 23rd WorldForum was held in Naples from the 26th to the 29th November at the Port Maritime Centre. 600 people attended the World Forum with representatives from 22 countries including Canada, Australia, South Africa, the United States, Uganda, Wales and England. As with the Melbourne WorldForum in 2011 the Italian government did not issue visas to a number of developing countries. This is disappointing as one of the goals of the WorldForum is to assist developing counties in their responses and programs to assist children most in need. The participation of representatives from developing countries remains a challenge for future WorldForums. It is proposed that the 2013 WorldForum be held in Malawi East Africa and the 2014, the 25th anniversary held in the founding country Finland.

As a part of the WorldForum the General Assembly of the IFCW was held. Sixteen members were present. New statutes were passed and a strategic directions paper accepted to set the agenda for the revamping of the organisation to meet changing global needs. I completed my term on the Executive committee. I however was appointed a special advisor to the IFCW for a further two years.

The theme for this years WorldForum was “Family, children and education at the core of the new challenges of social development: global scenarios, migration and citizenship.” The movement of children across the globe was a central theme and the way countries across the world are failing to address their needs.

The involvement of children and their families in the migration process was highlighted and not restricted to formal processes but included asylum seekers, boat people and others described by governments as illegal immigrants.  Issues discussed included;

• The different family structures among those who are seeking to move between countries
• Citizenship and the rights to an identity
• The process of integration in a new country
• The supports needed for families including education, housing, health and work opportunities
• The stigma associated with being a migrant
• The protection of children
• The voice of children 

The World Forum attracted a range of international speakers that gave diversity to the presentations while highlighting a number of common concerns and responses to the issues under discussions. The Opening session involved a range of government officials welcoming participants and extolling the challenges and how the various government departments were responding. The monochrome and predicable presentations by the local and regional government officials were interrupted with a rowdy demonstration by a large group of young people challenging the them and calling on the Forum to find out the truth about how services were being cut in Italy as a result of the Global Financial crisis with an invitation to visit some of their programs and to see for ourselves the extent of the financial cuts. . The audience listened attentively and applauded the voices when they finished their protest.  Without doubt there was much rhetoric spoken by a number of department heads with the demonstrators exposing their lack of substance. The Chair of Euro Child agreed to meet the protestors and to visit programs on behalf of the WorldForum. 

Keynote speakers included; Nadine Liddy the National Coordinator of MYCC-the Multi Youth Advocacy Centre from Victoria Australia, Susan Bissel from the United Nations Children’s Fund, Maipone Ramatlo from the Nelson Mandela Foundation in South Africa, Peggy Healy from Covenant House International for Latin America, Mike Shooter from Children in Wales, Maria Herczog from the UN committee on the Rights of the Child and Jane Hainsworth representing Euro-Child. 

Significant Outcomes for further thought and discussion. 

• The challenges faced buy Non government agencies is on the increase as they face serious cutbacks in government funding. Most of the countries represented at the WorldForum spoke about the discord between government rhetoric and the lack of political will to tackle the needs of families and children. Funding was often piecemeal and for one year. Many counties have initiated inquiries after inquires with little if any tangible increases in funding. In addition agencies are finding it difficult to raise funds from other sources as their traditional philanthropic base is ageing and new sources of funding scarce. 

• A second challenge the agencies face is the increasing control funding from government sources require.  Many speakers complained about increasing demands for accountability by governments which bore little relationship to actual service delivery

• Building the capacity of the NGO agency remains one of the highest priorities for the sector particularly in the developing countries and in countries where there is a large number of children and families seeking refuge status. Issues that need additional support and funding include the human trafficking of children, the impact of violence and conflict on children and the need for an identity. According to the UN there are 22.5 million children in the world today without a birth certificate and an identity. At the same time an increasing number of children are sending their children to other countries alone in the belief that they will be cared for and have a better life. 
• The priority given to economic indicators as the primary source of measurement of how well a country is responding to the needs of children and families do not, according to the experience of service providers reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground. The poorest of the poor are without power and generational deprivation is still alive and well. The demonstrators powerfully described this theme on the first day. 

• Advocacy was a key theme of many presentations including the role of faith and religious organisations, which according to a number of speakers remain the most vigilant in challenging political correctness of the day and critical of the emphasis of much fiscal policy. These bodies emphasize human rights and broad social policy implications while recognising the improvements in living standards in some countries. Improvements in living standards do not necessarily mean the poorest of the poor or the 40 million  people in transition or without a homeland are benefiting. There is a need to find a common universal consensus and agenda as a matter of urgency. As families and childhood are rapidly changing.  

• “Children, childhood challenge and change”, were recurring themes throughout the WorldForum. The themes embraced the increasing separation of families within and across countries as well as family breakdown across all levels of society. Family separation is also increasing among those classified as migrant families. This is a reality here in Australia among some groups who have arrived as asylum seekers or through the governments refugee program. The World Forum affirmed families as the most important foundation for children and the need to prevent children going into institutions should be a key priority for all societies. Families that do not care for their children properly should be identified early and given every opportunity to change.  This latter group is often marked by generations of deprivation. At the present time there are 38 million jobless families in the European Union. These families have 8.1 million children.

• The world’s population is currently 7 billion. By 2050 it is expected to be 9 billion. It is estimated that of the 7 billion in today’s world 1 billion are migrants. The drivers of migration include the following,
1. An ageing north and a youthful south 
2. Disparity in economic terms between the north and the south
3. The impact of media and other forms of communication have opened up opportunities not previously widely known.
4. Natural disasters
5. Degradation of land and the environment
6. The dream of a life with hope and prosperity. 

• The challenges to be addressed include migration weariness and threats to living standards in host countries that lead to anti immigration sentiments, sensational media, fear of religious clashes and closed borders.

• The most harrowing and distressing stories told at the Forum by young people themselves and others involved in programs were the levels of trafficking in children, the numbers involved as boy soldiers and the disregard for the lives of children starving of hunger. Stories were recounted of governments turning a blind eye to such atrocities. 

Where to from here? 

Change does not come about of its own accord. It requires a change of heart, honesty and integrity. It also requires a commitment to a common humanity with a special concern for the other. There is the need to challenge those who claim authority in government and agencies to meet the needs of children. Education, housing and health care are key ingredients. Advocacy and partnership with organisations with similar objectives must remain a strong objective of the non -government sector. Careful and rigorous examination of partnerships with government should remain a high priority. 

There is also the need to know ourselves as individuals and organisations. . What we bring to the table for discussion as well as out own ideology and how we see the world is important in determining how an agency will respond.  How we see the world is often a reflection of who we are and our understanding of the challenges we face. The need to accept that we may be a part of the problem as well as the solution is an important step.  We are not isolated beings but are ultimately relational to others and the environment. 

This years WorldForum provided many opportunities for those who work for children and families to reflect on their own efforts as individuals and agencies. The many shocking and vivid stories reminded all present that statistics do not tell the full story and that the stories of children being sold in to slavery and their treatment as sex objects shame us all. 

Millennium Development Goals

The present failure of world leaders to end the fighting and destruction in Syria, and the ongoing instability in Afghanistan, highlights the challenges the global community faces in addressing abuse, exploitation and torture in many parts of the wold.  Often fuelled by religion and sectarian divides the impact, particularly on women and children, remains a tragedy.

A recent report released by the United Nations on 2012 progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) highlights that, while some progress has been made in the areas of poverty reduction, access to safe drinking water, and reduced levels of child mortality, the pledge made in 2000 by world leaders to address these matters remains both a challenge and a dream.

While expectations around the world have grown for the Millennium goals to be fulfilled, there is growing and real anxiety that earlier hopes have now been dashed.  While improvements have been made in the areas of poverty reduction, education opportunities and child mortality, yet impediments still remain.  Recent natural disasters and the global financial crisis have further impeded reaching objectives, while the amount of global resources spent on arms continues to escalate.  Growing unemployment continues, and purchasing power in the poorest of countries continues to decline.  The impact of unemployment in Greece and Spain, particularly among the young and women, is having devastating effects on children and families.  The impact is still unclear and so, in turn, is likely to bring further suffering and pain.  Women and children remain the most affected and impoverished.  Another area of slow progress is maternal health, while the growing urbanisation of the world’s population is increasing pressure on infrastructure for water and electricity.  Rural areas still remain the most disadvantaged.

Perhaps the most challenging issue remains world hunger.  Nearly one billion people continue to live  in hunger, approximately 800 million in slum conditions.  These figures undoubtedly reflect an optimistic view and minimal expectations.

This assessment on progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goal is a reminder of the urgent need to rekindle the enthusiasm of the world leaders to recommit resources and energy at a greater pace and level than currently being experienced.  Much still needs to be done to tackle food scarcity, gender inequality, maternal health, housing and climate change.  How we respond to the needs of children in Australia remains ambivalent.  Children of asylum seekers and refugees are still locked up in detention, while child protection and family support services, including those for the indigenous population, cannot deal with the demand.

A political will is essential, as is the need to demand of our political representation a vigorous recommitment to the children of the world. The wellbeing of a country is best measured by how well it provides for and treats children in the present and the future.