LABOR leader Kevin Rudd has seized a bizarre fate -- a resurrection of trade union power, collective bargaining rights and a far stronger industrial umpire as the keys to The Lodge.
Rudd's new industrial policy is a giant step into the past. Indeed, so sweeping is Labor's embrace of the principles of collective power and re-regulation that it must be wondered whether Rudd fully comprehends what he has done.
It is the most intriguing question from the ALP national conference.
Neither Rudd's spin as the leader of the future nor his selling of the policy as a homily to family values can disguise its reality - this is a radical re-casting against individual discretion, employers and small business in favour of collective power, trade unions and third-party enforcement.
With this policy, Rudd forfeits any chance of being a serious rival to John Howard on economic policy. He looks a conventional leader using spin to pose as a modernist.
The mechanics of the decision are telling. The policy is a collaboration between two of Labor's best brains, ACTU chief Greg Combet and deputy leader Julia Gillard. It has not been approved by the Opposition front bench. It has not been vetted by Labor's business guru, Rod Eddington. It was not debated at national conference because it mirrors a Labor-ACTU consensus. Key sections were kept from business before the announcement.
It draws a line in the sand. It defines Rudd's election strategy as a joint and massive assault by Labor and the trade unions against Work Choices.
At this point Labor loses the goodwill of big business, the hope of winning small business and the dream that it stands for entrepreneurship. Rudd's election strategy is to pitch to working families with the claim that an arrogant Howard has abandoned them.
The stage is set for a bitter election over the industrial model that Australia needs for its open economy, an issue unresolved for a generation that now approaches showdown time.
The Rudd-Gillard policy Forward with Fairness is a sweeping alternative to Work Choices. It reveals Labor's conviction that Work Choices is a loser for Howard, that Labor had no option but to find a policy acceptable to the unions and that its marketing by Rudd and Gillard should rely upon fairness and family values.
In his speech, Rudd said Howard had launched "an assault on Australian family life" and that Labor would "restore the balance".
This is neither a credible nor accurate statement about the totality of Labor's policy. This policy goes far beyond any family friendly test. It is better described as union friendly. The details and the scale of Labor's package transcend any effort merely to restore fairness to the workplace.
Consider two of the latest elements. First, Labor will allow any workplace where there is 51per cent support for collective bargaining to impose this upon the employer for the entire workplace. The new umpire, Fair Work Australia, can decide whether there is majority support (yes, a union-organised petition is enough). The Labor Party calls this democracy and wants to pretend it is family friendly. In truth, it is about power. Power for collective at the cost of minority rights.
Second, Fair Work Australia centralises powers on a huge scale such that the advisory, mediating, prosecuting and judiciary functions are combined (yes, the umpire will have different divisions). This raises serious questions of workability and of the powers and culture of such an organisation. Its officials will be located in your neighbourhood. Is this a blessing or a terror for local business?
It is significant that Labor formulated this concept in consultation with the unions and in secret from business. Such an institution is more about power than fairness.
In addition, Labor will create a new complex safety net based upon both 10 nationally legislated and universal conditions (applying to both big and small business) plus a re-strengthened award system containing a further 10 minimum standards. And don't forget: individual workplace agreements will be outlawed and unfair dismissal laws re-imposed.
Business wanted to believe in Rudd. It is unlikely to repeat the mistake. As an exasperated chief of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, said: "Kevin Rudd talks a lot about productivity but this re-regulation will lower productivity."
Sunday, 25 November 2007
Paul Kelly: Rudd gains traction on national security
IN a serious blunder John Howard has revealed how much his national security credentials have been undermined by the elevation of Kevin Rudd, the Iraq fiasco and the anti-war mood in the US.
Howard's attack on Democratic candidate Barack Obama was an error of judgment, more serious than his audio mishap about climate change the previous week. It reveals the pressure on Howard from Rudd's success and the political difficulty for the Government arising from the Iraq War.
The irony is sharp. By trying to play to his strengths on the US alliance and national security, Howard has exposed his diminishing political traction on this front. He has revealed that the tide of events in Iraq and the US is running against him. The public knows this anyway.
The real problem is far deeper: it penetrates to Howard's leadership credentials against Rudd. Howard gave Rudd the perfect opportunity for his first censure motion. "Would an experienced Prime Minister have said something like this?" Rudd asked. He kept repeating Howard's words from the Sunday show, that Obama's position would encourage those "who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq and create chaos and victory for the terrorists" and that al-Qa'ida would "pray as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
It is an extraordinary attack on a potential US president. Such comments tie Howard more closely to President George W. Bush when the American people are deserting him. They tie Howard more closely to Bush's present Iraq strategy that is certain to be opposed by whoever becomes the Democratic Party's nominee.
Nothing better reveals the differences between Rudd and Mark Latham. Latham mocked Howard for being an "arselicker" to President Bush and putting US ties before Australia's interest. Rudd uses the opposite argument.
Rudd depicted Howard as a leader of flawed judgment who had risked alliance relations, alienated the Democratic Party, unnecessarily intervened in US politics, employed reckless language and whose personal relationship with Bush was a danger to the bipartisan operation of the alliance.
Adopting his best patronising tone, Rudd depicted himself as a more balanced upholder of the alliance than Howard. He argued that Howard had compromised the national interest. His subtext was manifest: that Howard's claim on experience was flawed, his judgment defective.
This is about leadership qualifications and mettle. It is about the absolute essence of Howard's prime ministership. Rudd presents himself as a better manager of the US alliance than Howard. Nothing could be more removed for the Liberals than the happy days of Latham.
The claims by some commentators that Howard was only giving an honest answer to the question are absurd. His provocative and intemperate language was deliberate yet a mistake: it guaranteed an international story and repudiation from US politicians. Why did Howard make these comments?
The answer is obvious. He is campaigning as a war leader. A war leader relies upon conviction, faith and passion. While basic differences over Iraq remain between Howard and Labor then Howard will depict Labor's troop withdrawal policy as a disaster for the West and a mistake for Australia. For Howard, this is a tactic and an article of faith.
On Monday in parliament Howard told Rudd: "An American defeat in Iraq would be a catastrophe for the West. I hold the strongest possible view that it is contrary to the security interests of this country for America to be defeated in Iraq."
Yesterday in parliament Howard confronted Rudd demanding that he say what would be the consequences of a US troop withdrawal, the policy he advocates for Australia. Howard said: "Over the last day and a half I have been attacked and lacerated by the Opposition for expressing my view, but the Leader of the Opposition does not have the guts to express his."
Interviewed by The Australian late yesterday, Howard turned up the heat on Rudd. He demanded that Rudd answer the question. He said Rudd, as a self-declared foreign policy expert, must tell the nation about the consequences of any US troop withdrawal. Howard is furious about Rudd playing both sides of the fence on issue after issue. "He (Rudd) wants the political advantage of bringing the boys home but when it comes to the alliance he fudges the consequences," Howard said. "He is supposed to be the expert. He has to explain the consequences of his policy."
Howard is right to argue the dangers involved in any precipitate US troop withdrawal. His problem, however, is the rapid change in the American political climate, the failure of the existing Iraqi strategy and the shift within the Democratic Party towards various formulas for disengagement. Howard cannot defend a position that most Americans might not defend, even if it's valid.
Howard's real target is Rudd, not Obama. He was misguided in getting involved in US politics. He was humiliated by Obama, who dismissed Howard's 1400 troops and said that if Australia was serious it would commit more forces, otherwise Howard was involved in "empty rhetoric." What else did Howard expect?
Howard wants to nail Rudd on Iraq just as he nailed Latham three years earlier. His trouble is that Rudd is not Latham and the ground is shifting in the US. Many Democrats and a number of Republicans would not be uncomfortable with Rudd's stance. In this context Howard's claim that Rudd would undermine the alliance lacks traction.
Rudd is attempting to reposition Labor on Iraq and the US alliance. So he fudges the withdrawal policy and injects maximum flexibility into Labor's position. Rudd wants both to quit the war yet champion the alliance. He thinks and positions like an alternative prime minister, not as an Opposition leader who opposes everything. So Rudd insists that in office he would consult with the US and not leave America "in the lurch".
Asked about the details of Labor policy, shadow foreign minister Robert McClelland said yesterday an ALP government would stage its withdrawal after consulting with the Australian military and our US and British allies. Full stop. It would not necessarily withdraw with the next troop rotation after Labor's election. Witness maximum flexibility.
The lesson is that Rudd is more politically fireproofed on the alliance than Howard appreciates. Rudd has spent 15 years attending the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue and has a number of colleagues within both the Republican and Democratic parties who would go on the record testifying to their confidence in him. Rudd helped the Americans during the worst days of Latham's anti-US rants and they have not forgotten.
The ultimate lesson is that Howard's big lead on the national security issue is being gradually eroded by Rudd. It guarantees that Howard will make the economy the central election issue.
Howard's attack on Democratic candidate Barack Obama was an error of judgment, more serious than his audio mishap about climate change the previous week. It reveals the pressure on Howard from Rudd's success and the political difficulty for the Government arising from the Iraq War.
The irony is sharp. By trying to play to his strengths on the US alliance and national security, Howard has exposed his diminishing political traction on this front. He has revealed that the tide of events in Iraq and the US is running against him. The public knows this anyway.
The real problem is far deeper: it penetrates to Howard's leadership credentials against Rudd. Howard gave Rudd the perfect opportunity for his first censure motion. "Would an experienced Prime Minister have said something like this?" Rudd asked. He kept repeating Howard's words from the Sunday show, that Obama's position would encourage those "who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq and create chaos and victory for the terrorists" and that al-Qa'ida would "pray as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
It is an extraordinary attack on a potential US president. Such comments tie Howard more closely to President George W. Bush when the American people are deserting him. They tie Howard more closely to Bush's present Iraq strategy that is certain to be opposed by whoever becomes the Democratic Party's nominee.
Nothing better reveals the differences between Rudd and Mark Latham. Latham mocked Howard for being an "arselicker" to President Bush and putting US ties before Australia's interest. Rudd uses the opposite argument.
Rudd depicted Howard as a leader of flawed judgment who had risked alliance relations, alienated the Democratic Party, unnecessarily intervened in US politics, employed reckless language and whose personal relationship with Bush was a danger to the bipartisan operation of the alliance.
Adopting his best patronising tone, Rudd depicted himself as a more balanced upholder of the alliance than Howard. He argued that Howard had compromised the national interest. His subtext was manifest: that Howard's claim on experience was flawed, his judgment defective.
This is about leadership qualifications and mettle. It is about the absolute essence of Howard's prime ministership. Rudd presents himself as a better manager of the US alliance than Howard. Nothing could be more removed for the Liberals than the happy days of Latham.
The claims by some commentators that Howard was only giving an honest answer to the question are absurd. His provocative and intemperate language was deliberate yet a mistake: it guaranteed an international story and repudiation from US politicians. Why did Howard make these comments?
The answer is obvious. He is campaigning as a war leader. A war leader relies upon conviction, faith and passion. While basic differences over Iraq remain between Howard and Labor then Howard will depict Labor's troop withdrawal policy as a disaster for the West and a mistake for Australia. For Howard, this is a tactic and an article of faith.
On Monday in parliament Howard told Rudd: "An American defeat in Iraq would be a catastrophe for the West. I hold the strongest possible view that it is contrary to the security interests of this country for America to be defeated in Iraq."
Yesterday in parliament Howard confronted Rudd demanding that he say what would be the consequences of a US troop withdrawal, the policy he advocates for Australia. Howard said: "Over the last day and a half I have been attacked and lacerated by the Opposition for expressing my view, but the Leader of the Opposition does not have the guts to express his."
Interviewed by The Australian late yesterday, Howard turned up the heat on Rudd. He demanded that Rudd answer the question. He said Rudd, as a self-declared foreign policy expert, must tell the nation about the consequences of any US troop withdrawal. Howard is furious about Rudd playing both sides of the fence on issue after issue. "He (Rudd) wants the political advantage of bringing the boys home but when it comes to the alliance he fudges the consequences," Howard said. "He is supposed to be the expert. He has to explain the consequences of his policy."
Howard is right to argue the dangers involved in any precipitate US troop withdrawal. His problem, however, is the rapid change in the American political climate, the failure of the existing Iraqi strategy and the shift within the Democratic Party towards various formulas for disengagement. Howard cannot defend a position that most Americans might not defend, even if it's valid.
Howard's real target is Rudd, not Obama. He was misguided in getting involved in US politics. He was humiliated by Obama, who dismissed Howard's 1400 troops and said that if Australia was serious it would commit more forces, otherwise Howard was involved in "empty rhetoric." What else did Howard expect?
Howard wants to nail Rudd on Iraq just as he nailed Latham three years earlier. His trouble is that Rudd is not Latham and the ground is shifting in the US. Many Democrats and a number of Republicans would not be uncomfortable with Rudd's stance. In this context Howard's claim that Rudd would undermine the alliance lacks traction.
Rudd is attempting to reposition Labor on Iraq and the US alliance. So he fudges the withdrawal policy and injects maximum flexibility into Labor's position. Rudd wants both to quit the war yet champion the alliance. He thinks and positions like an alternative prime minister, not as an Opposition leader who opposes everything. So Rudd insists that in office he would consult with the US and not leave America "in the lurch".
Asked about the details of Labor policy, shadow foreign minister Robert McClelland said yesterday an ALP government would stage its withdrawal after consulting with the Australian military and our US and British allies. Full stop. It would not necessarily withdraw with the next troop rotation after Labor's election. Witness maximum flexibility.
The lesson is that Rudd is more politically fireproofed on the alliance than Howard appreciates. Rudd has spent 15 years attending the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue and has a number of colleagues within both the Republican and Democratic parties who would go on the record testifying to their confidence in him. Rudd helped the Americans during the worst days of Latham's anti-US rants and they have not forgotten.
The ultimate lesson is that Howard's big lead on the national security issue is being gradually eroded by Rudd. It guarantees that Howard will make the economy the central election issue.
Paul Kelly: 'Long War' has just begun
AUSTRALIA'S ambassador to the US, Dennis Richardson, warns that Democrats and Republicans alike believe the war on terrorism is just beginning and that the legacy of the 9/11 attacks will shape American politics for the next generation.
In an interview with The Australian, the former director-general of ASIO says that US forces will remain in Iraq for some time.
He warned that "no major US presidential candidate from either party" was calling for a complete US troop withdrawal. He said the extent of common views between Democrats and Republicans was greater than realised in Australia.
"You would be looking at a continuation of anywhere between 40,000 to 80,000 US military personnel in Iraq well into 2008 and into 2009," Mr Richardson said.
"Too many people assume that come January 2009, and the Bush presidency ends, the world is going to change all of a sudden. A lot won't change. And that tends to be glossed over."
Asked about the war on terrorism, Mr Richardson said: "In terms of how Americans think the Long War's going, I think they believe they're not yet 10 per cent through it. In terms of a conflict lasting for a generation or more, you don't get a lot of difference across the political spectrum. The political differences are over the approach to the Long War."
Mr Richardson's remarks highlight that under any new Democratic president the "Long War" against terrorism will continue, though its tactics and approach may change.
"The basic reference point for the US for a long time to come will be 9/11," he said. "A generation of US political leaders, at least, will have 9/11 as their reference point. Anyone assuming this reference point is going to disappear when President Bush goes is not taking a close interest in the US debate."
Mr Richardson strongly played down suggestions of a US military strike on Iran, attributing such reports to a misreading of the Bush administration.
"The Bush administration is absolutely committed to a diplomatic option (on Iran)," he said. Asked if this would continue, he replied, "Yes, for the foreseeable future".
Mr Richardson said that recent comments by the Bush administration keeping the military option on the table on Iran were "not controversial" and were something that "Democratic presidential candidates would agree with". These remarks "did not mean the administration was pursuing a military option".
"The US is working hard with its European allies through the Security Council to stop this (a nuclear-armed Iran) happening," he said.
With Australia about to commit fresh forces to Afghanistan, Mr Richardson said the US, Australia and other nations were likely to be involved in Afghanistan "for the foreseeable future".
He said: "There is a real concern about what has been a slow deterioration in Afghanistan. There is concern about leakage from Pakistan. This is a big issue for Australia because I don't think anyone wants to see terrorist training camps re-established in that part of the world. There is not a single major US presidential candidate that has a negative word to say about the need to stay in Afghanistan."
On Iraq, Mr Richardson said the US debate was "more complex" than it seemed. "There is no major presidential candidate on either side that seeks a complete withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq," he said.
"All major candidates from the Democrats and Republicans consider there will be a need for a significant US military engagement for quite some time. The differences are in respect of how long combat troops should be left in Iraq.
"There is agreement across the spectrum that the US should remain militarily engaged in Iraq to fight 'international terrorism', that's in and around Ambar province. There is agreement across the spectrum that the US should remain involved in training the Iraq security forces and should remain involved in providing logistic and other support. There is agreement across the spectrum that the US should assist with border security. And there is agreement across the spectrum that the US should have a ready response capability which would enable US forces to come to the assistance of other US forces if they run into problems."
Depending on how the numbers were done, this meant forces in the range of 40,000-80,000 through 2009.
Mr Richardson said there was a "wide diversity" of views about the conduct of the Iraq war. The main concern revolved about the question: are our troops involved in a civil war? On the prospect of US defeat in Iraq there was a concern this "could have wider regional implications".
Mr Richardson said there was "an evident pragmatism" in Bush's second term that had been missed by many commentators who remained "mesmerised" by the decisions of his first term. US policy towards Iran, North Korea and relations with China were evidence of this pragmatism.
While Iraq and the Middle East were taking up the political oxygen, the Bush administration's record in Asia was impressive.
"Over the last few years, the US has improved its bilateral relationship with each of China, Japan and India," Mr Richardson said. "I think you would have got long odds a few years back on that happening. And that set of trans-Pacific relationships determine the strategic environment in which Australia lives."
In an interview with The Australian, the former director-general of ASIO says that US forces will remain in Iraq for some time.
He warned that "no major US presidential candidate from either party" was calling for a complete US troop withdrawal. He said the extent of common views between Democrats and Republicans was greater than realised in Australia.
"You would be looking at a continuation of anywhere between 40,000 to 80,000 US military personnel in Iraq well into 2008 and into 2009," Mr Richardson said.
"Too many people assume that come January 2009, and the Bush presidency ends, the world is going to change all of a sudden. A lot won't change. And that tends to be glossed over."
Asked about the war on terrorism, Mr Richardson said: "In terms of how Americans think the Long War's going, I think they believe they're not yet 10 per cent through it. In terms of a conflict lasting for a generation or more, you don't get a lot of difference across the political spectrum. The political differences are over the approach to the Long War."
Mr Richardson's remarks highlight that under any new Democratic president the "Long War" against terrorism will continue, though its tactics and approach may change.
"The basic reference point for the US for a long time to come will be 9/11," he said. "A generation of US political leaders, at least, will have 9/11 as their reference point. Anyone assuming this reference point is going to disappear when President Bush goes is not taking a close interest in the US debate."
Mr Richardson strongly played down suggestions of a US military strike on Iran, attributing such reports to a misreading of the Bush administration.
"The Bush administration is absolutely committed to a diplomatic option (on Iran)," he said. Asked if this would continue, he replied, "Yes, for the foreseeable future".
Mr Richardson said that recent comments by the Bush administration keeping the military option on the table on Iran were "not controversial" and were something that "Democratic presidential candidates would agree with". These remarks "did not mean the administration was pursuing a military option".
"The US is working hard with its European allies through the Security Council to stop this (a nuclear-armed Iran) happening," he said.
With Australia about to commit fresh forces to Afghanistan, Mr Richardson said the US, Australia and other nations were likely to be involved in Afghanistan "for the foreseeable future".
He said: "There is a real concern about what has been a slow deterioration in Afghanistan. There is concern about leakage from Pakistan. This is a big issue for Australia because I don't think anyone wants to see terrorist training camps re-established in that part of the world. There is not a single major US presidential candidate that has a negative word to say about the need to stay in Afghanistan."
On Iraq, Mr Richardson said the US debate was "more complex" than it seemed. "There is no major presidential candidate on either side that seeks a complete withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq," he said.
"All major candidates from the Democrats and Republicans consider there will be a need for a significant US military engagement for quite some time. The differences are in respect of how long combat troops should be left in Iraq.
"There is agreement across the spectrum that the US should remain militarily engaged in Iraq to fight 'international terrorism', that's in and around Ambar province. There is agreement across the spectrum that the US should remain involved in training the Iraq security forces and should remain involved in providing logistic and other support. There is agreement across the spectrum that the US should assist with border security. And there is agreement across the spectrum that the US should have a ready response capability which would enable US forces to come to the assistance of other US forces if they run into problems."
Depending on how the numbers were done, this meant forces in the range of 40,000-80,000 through 2009.
Mr Richardson said there was a "wide diversity" of views about the conduct of the Iraq war. The main concern revolved about the question: are our troops involved in a civil war? On the prospect of US defeat in Iraq there was a concern this "could have wider regional implications".
Mr Richardson said there was "an evident pragmatism" in Bush's second term that had been missed by many commentators who remained "mesmerised" by the decisions of his first term. US policy towards Iran, North Korea and relations with China were evidence of this pragmatism.
While Iraq and the Middle East were taking up the political oxygen, the Bush administration's record in Asia was impressive.
"Over the last few years, the US has improved its bilateral relationship with each of China, Japan and India," Mr Richardson said. "I think you would have got long odds a few years back on that happening. And that set of trans-Pacific relationships determine the strategic environment in which Australia lives."
Paul Kelly: God at heart of new strategy
AFTER a decade of John Howard, who has been attacked for bringing religion into politics, the Labor Party has elected in Kevin Rudd a leader who declares this to be his duty.
These are not good days for secularists who aspire to remove the bogy of religion and religious superstition from politics. They are fighting a losing cause. Despite the decline of the hierarchical churches, Australia has two political leaders who are declared Christians and believe in the influence of religious ethics in politics.
Contrary to claims, Australia is not following the US path, where the decentralised, populist, market-based evangelical impulse embedded in America's soil and psyche has led to the rise of the Christian Right, much exploited by George W. Bush. It is an irony, however, that after 10 years of Howard's appeal to conservative, traditional and Christian values amid howls of outrage from his secularist opponents, that Labor has elected as his opponent a declared Christian conservative with a religiously inspired social philosophy based on the gospel.
This would surprise only those who miss the big global trends or who are seriously out of touch. God's comeback is one of the dominant world stories of the past decade. Rarely reported in Australia, it is usually presented as an Islamic manifestation or a pathetic sign of US dysfunction.
The Pew Forum's Timothy Samuel Shah and Harvard University's Monica Duffy Toft conclude: "The belief that outbreaks of politicised religion are temporary detours on the road to secularisation was plausible in 1976, 1986 and even 1996. Today the argument is untenable. As a framework for explaining and predicting the course of global politics, secularism is increasingly unsound."
This constitutes one of the radical messages of the age. During the past 40 years the main religions - Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and Hinduism - have grown faster than the world's population. From covering 50 per cent of total population at the start of the 20th century they will cover close to 70 per cent by 2025. The trend is apparent in Africa, Asia and the Americas.
It is driven not only by demography. As Samuel Huntington says: "A global phenomenon demands a global explanation. The most obvious cause of the global religious resurgence is precisely what was supposed to cause the death of religion: the process of social, economic and cultural modernisation that swept across the world in the second half of the 20th century." It is apparent from Russia to India, from Nigeria to the US.
Australia is only on the periphery of such trends and has its own story. The decline of the Australian churches is documented with Anglican bishop Tom Frame recently saying: "Christians no longer enjoy political, social or moral ascendancy. Many clergy feel besieged or ignored. Whereas previously the church's position meant a great deal in national affairs and Christian thinkers were accorded a prime place in the public square, Christians can no longer presume they will even be heard, let alone heeded, in an increasingly indifferent and hostile society."
Yet there are contrary trends apparent in politics. There is a growing revolt against the secularisation of public life. Howard's prime ministership captures this trend in its explicit quest to restore values and ethics and mobilise the Christian vote.
Howard recognises the public's mood for a reassertion of standards. Although this does not necessarily involve religion, the revival of tradition, unsurprisingly, usually does contain religious elements.
Rudd's arrival, however, highlights another trend: that political leaders seek to define themselves by religion and Christian action. Rudd presents himself as a leader to restore the ethical balance in Australia. He embraces a dynamic and assertive view of the Christian role in politics that goes beyond anything Howard propounds. As far as I am aware, it goes beyond any Christian vision advanced by any other federal political leader of a main party for many decades. Bob Menzies, during the Christian age of the 1950s, did not talk like Rudd.
In his recent article in The Monthly magazine, Rudd declared his personal hero to be German theologian, pastor and peace activist Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who defied Adolf Hitler and was executed. Rudd quotes Bonhoeffer in 1937 prophetically saying that "when Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die".
Rudd upholds Bonhoeffer's rejection of the two kingdoms doctrine: that the concern of the gospel is the inner person, as opposed to the realm of state affairs.
Bonhoeffer railed at a church for which Christianity was "a metaphysical abstraction, to be spoken of only at the edges of life". For Bonhoeffer, the church must stand "in the middle of the village".
So Labor has a leader who champions Bonhoeffer's muscular Christianity and finds him in the tradition of Thomas More, who defied the king and paid with his life. Why did Rudd write this article? Not because he had spare time on a rainy day. It was part of Rudd's campaign to establish his philosophical credentials for the Labor leadership.
For Rudd, what counts is how the individual Christian should relate to the state. His answer is unequivocal. They should relate by Bonhoeffer's principle of action, and that means taking the "side of the marginalised, the vulnerable and the oppressed". Rudd says the church's role "in all these areas of social, economic and security policy is to speak directly to the state". He wants the church to fill the moral and political vacuums.
There is no compromise. In case you missed the point, Rudd gets specific: "We should repudiate the proposition that such policy debates are somehow simply 'the practical matters of the state' which should be left to 'practical' politicians rather than to 'impractical' pastors, preachers and theologians."
It would be hard to imagine a more comprehensive rejection of aggressive secularists seeking to keep religion and church out of politics. For Rudd, religion has an important and constructive role to play. The state, in turn, has an obligation to listen, if not to endorse.
Rudd lectures politicians on how to deal with the church. He puts secularists on notice: Christian views should be heard and respected. They should not be "rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere". That would diminish our civic life.
Rudd knows that Howard operates on the reality that religion is involved in politics.
His response is not to deny this but to embrace it. In political terms, Rudd's target is Howard. In religious terms, Rudd's targets are those Christian leaders and Christians who allow their faith to be turned into the handmaiden of the conservative political establishment.
By arguing for a Christianity based in social action, Rudd hopes to rebuild links between the Labor Party and the churches.
Frankly, it is long overdue, given the mass Christian defection to the Coalition. For Rudd, this seems to be a political strategy and an expression of his Christianity.
The symbolism of Howard and Rudd as rivals is hard to avoid. The message is that while the church and its membership is in decline, the role of religious values in politics is undergoing a revival.
This is driven by deep currents unlikely to dissipate any time soon.
This is adapted from the Acton Lecture: Religion and Politics - Contemporary Tensions, delivered at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney on Monday.
These are not good days for secularists who aspire to remove the bogy of religion and religious superstition from politics. They are fighting a losing cause. Despite the decline of the hierarchical churches, Australia has two political leaders who are declared Christians and believe in the influence of religious ethics in politics.
Contrary to claims, Australia is not following the US path, where the decentralised, populist, market-based evangelical impulse embedded in America's soil and psyche has led to the rise of the Christian Right, much exploited by George W. Bush. It is an irony, however, that after 10 years of Howard's appeal to conservative, traditional and Christian values amid howls of outrage from his secularist opponents, that Labor has elected as his opponent a declared Christian conservative with a religiously inspired social philosophy based on the gospel.
This would surprise only those who miss the big global trends or who are seriously out of touch. God's comeback is one of the dominant world stories of the past decade. Rarely reported in Australia, it is usually presented as an Islamic manifestation or a pathetic sign of US dysfunction.
The Pew Forum's Timothy Samuel Shah and Harvard University's Monica Duffy Toft conclude: "The belief that outbreaks of politicised religion are temporary detours on the road to secularisation was plausible in 1976, 1986 and even 1996. Today the argument is untenable. As a framework for explaining and predicting the course of global politics, secularism is increasingly unsound."
This constitutes one of the radical messages of the age. During the past 40 years the main religions - Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and Hinduism - have grown faster than the world's population. From covering 50 per cent of total population at the start of the 20th century they will cover close to 70 per cent by 2025. The trend is apparent in Africa, Asia and the Americas.
It is driven not only by demography. As Samuel Huntington says: "A global phenomenon demands a global explanation. The most obvious cause of the global religious resurgence is precisely what was supposed to cause the death of religion: the process of social, economic and cultural modernisation that swept across the world in the second half of the 20th century." It is apparent from Russia to India, from Nigeria to the US.
Australia is only on the periphery of such trends and has its own story. The decline of the Australian churches is documented with Anglican bishop Tom Frame recently saying: "Christians no longer enjoy political, social or moral ascendancy. Many clergy feel besieged or ignored. Whereas previously the church's position meant a great deal in national affairs and Christian thinkers were accorded a prime place in the public square, Christians can no longer presume they will even be heard, let alone heeded, in an increasingly indifferent and hostile society."
Yet there are contrary trends apparent in politics. There is a growing revolt against the secularisation of public life. Howard's prime ministership captures this trend in its explicit quest to restore values and ethics and mobilise the Christian vote.
Howard recognises the public's mood for a reassertion of standards. Although this does not necessarily involve religion, the revival of tradition, unsurprisingly, usually does contain religious elements.
Rudd's arrival, however, highlights another trend: that political leaders seek to define themselves by religion and Christian action. Rudd presents himself as a leader to restore the ethical balance in Australia. He embraces a dynamic and assertive view of the Christian role in politics that goes beyond anything Howard propounds. As far as I am aware, it goes beyond any Christian vision advanced by any other federal political leader of a main party for many decades. Bob Menzies, during the Christian age of the 1950s, did not talk like Rudd.
In his recent article in The Monthly magazine, Rudd declared his personal hero to be German theologian, pastor and peace activist Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who defied Adolf Hitler and was executed. Rudd quotes Bonhoeffer in 1937 prophetically saying that "when Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die".
Rudd upholds Bonhoeffer's rejection of the two kingdoms doctrine: that the concern of the gospel is the inner person, as opposed to the realm of state affairs.
Bonhoeffer railed at a church for which Christianity was "a metaphysical abstraction, to be spoken of only at the edges of life". For Bonhoeffer, the church must stand "in the middle of the village".
So Labor has a leader who champions Bonhoeffer's muscular Christianity and finds him in the tradition of Thomas More, who defied the king and paid with his life. Why did Rudd write this article? Not because he had spare time on a rainy day. It was part of Rudd's campaign to establish his philosophical credentials for the Labor leadership.
For Rudd, what counts is how the individual Christian should relate to the state. His answer is unequivocal. They should relate by Bonhoeffer's principle of action, and that means taking the "side of the marginalised, the vulnerable and the oppressed". Rudd says the church's role "in all these areas of social, economic and security policy is to speak directly to the state". He wants the church to fill the moral and political vacuums.
There is no compromise. In case you missed the point, Rudd gets specific: "We should repudiate the proposition that such policy debates are somehow simply 'the practical matters of the state' which should be left to 'practical' politicians rather than to 'impractical' pastors, preachers and theologians."
It would be hard to imagine a more comprehensive rejection of aggressive secularists seeking to keep religion and church out of politics. For Rudd, religion has an important and constructive role to play. The state, in turn, has an obligation to listen, if not to endorse.
Rudd lectures politicians on how to deal with the church. He puts secularists on notice: Christian views should be heard and respected. They should not be "rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere". That would diminish our civic life.
Rudd knows that Howard operates on the reality that religion is involved in politics.
His response is not to deny this but to embrace it. In political terms, Rudd's target is Howard. In religious terms, Rudd's targets are those Christian leaders and Christians who allow their faith to be turned into the handmaiden of the conservative political establishment.
By arguing for a Christianity based in social action, Rudd hopes to rebuild links between the Labor Party and the churches.
Frankly, it is long overdue, given the mass Christian defection to the Coalition. For Rudd, this seems to be a political strategy and an expression of his Christianity.
The symbolism of Howard and Rudd as rivals is hard to avoid. The message is that while the church and its membership is in decline, the role of religious values in politics is undergoing a revival.
This is driven by deep currents unlikely to dissipate any time soon.
This is adapted from the Acton Lecture: Religion and Politics - Contemporary Tensions, delivered at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney on Monday.
Paul Kelly: An emissions blueprint for the world to follow
THE essence of John Howard's belated response to climate change is to commit early, think global and implement slowly.
After years of dispute and scepticism, Australia now has a strategic blueprint for action -- a blueprint superior to the defect-ridden European emission trading regime.
This is the start of Australia exerting serious influence on the global debate. In substantive terms, it closes the gulf between Howard and Kevin Rudd on climate change.
It insists that Australia must act now and not wait for global agreement. It makes the timetable for emission trading almost bipartisan -- Howard in 2011 and Labor by 2010.
While Howard's report does not specify a target -- in response to Rudd's 60 per cent cut by 2050 -- its entire "cap and trade" scheme depends upon a long-term target to be finalised next year after more analysis. Labor, equally, wants the scheme's design finalised "by the end of 2008".
This report, inspired by Treasury and the business community, opens a new era for Australia. It is the first federal government strategy to combat climate change.
It ends the debate between believers and sceptics. It starts a new debate between those favouring a market solution and those wanting government to pick energy winners. This is where the report will be extremely contentious.
The new battle that now opens is between the Treasury view that only a modest pace of adjustment is needed in the early years and the radicals who demand early and deep cuts in emissions by 2020. The report is utterly unforgiving on this tactic -- it depicts such early and deep cuts as a disaster for Australia's economy. While Rudd has avoided any 2020 targets, the rhetoric of his environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, has been different.
The report argues the big adjustments should come down the track after the technological innovation that enables such cuts with minimum harm to the economy.
Certain to become Howard's policy, the taskforce report rests upon three pillars -- a national strategy run by the federal Government requiring the states to abandon their own schemes; the view that Australia cannot wait upon a global regime; and a comprehensive market-based approach to trading that encompasses 75 per cent of total emissions, including fuel use in transport. This is far more comprehensive than the European model.
Australia's model is likely to appeal more to developing nations because of its exemption mechanisms for the trade-exposed sector where many companies now operate on world's best practice.
The report offers a sober appraisal of the realities. Climate change is a global problem. It cannot and will not be solved by Australia.
To this point debate on a post-2012 global framework has been "disappointingly slow". The current Kyoto arrangements are "inherently flawed". But Australia's creation of its own scheme gives it credibility in the emerging debate about the post-2012 system.
After years of dispute and scepticism, Australia now has a strategic blueprint for action -- a blueprint superior to the defect-ridden European emission trading regime.
This is the start of Australia exerting serious influence on the global debate. In substantive terms, it closes the gulf between Howard and Kevin Rudd on climate change.
It insists that Australia must act now and not wait for global agreement. It makes the timetable for emission trading almost bipartisan -- Howard in 2011 and Labor by 2010.
While Howard's report does not specify a target -- in response to Rudd's 60 per cent cut by 2050 -- its entire "cap and trade" scheme depends upon a long-term target to be finalised next year after more analysis. Labor, equally, wants the scheme's design finalised "by the end of 2008".
This report, inspired by Treasury and the business community, opens a new era for Australia. It is the first federal government strategy to combat climate change.
It ends the debate between believers and sceptics. It starts a new debate between those favouring a market solution and those wanting government to pick energy winners. This is where the report will be extremely contentious.
The new battle that now opens is between the Treasury view that only a modest pace of adjustment is needed in the early years and the radicals who demand early and deep cuts in emissions by 2020. The report is utterly unforgiving on this tactic -- it depicts such early and deep cuts as a disaster for Australia's economy. While Rudd has avoided any 2020 targets, the rhetoric of his environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, has been different.
The report argues the big adjustments should come down the track after the technological innovation that enables such cuts with minimum harm to the economy.
Certain to become Howard's policy, the taskforce report rests upon three pillars -- a national strategy run by the federal Government requiring the states to abandon their own schemes; the view that Australia cannot wait upon a global regime; and a comprehensive market-based approach to trading that encompasses 75 per cent of total emissions, including fuel use in transport. This is far more comprehensive than the European model.
Australia's model is likely to appeal more to developing nations because of its exemption mechanisms for the trade-exposed sector where many companies now operate on world's best practice.
The report offers a sober appraisal of the realities. Climate change is a global problem. It cannot and will not be solved by Australia.
To this point debate on a post-2012 global framework has been "disappointingly slow". The current Kyoto arrangements are "inherently flawed". But Australia's creation of its own scheme gives it credibility in the emerging debate about the post-2012 system.
Paul Kelly: Onus is on Rudd | The Australian
CONTRARY to the deepest orthodoxy of Labor politicians, trade union officials and political analysts, the Work Choices laws represent the decisive test of Kevin Rudd's credentials to govern Australia. It is Rudd, not John Howard, who faces the bigger decisions on Work Choices. It is Rudd, not Howard, who has to formulate and explain his Work Choices policy. It is Rudd, not Howard, who has yet to address the big questions on Work Choices.
Remember that Rudd, unlike Howard, is an open book on industrial relations. He has yet to declare his real beliefs. This declaration in the form of his industrial relations policy will brand Rudd's values, reformism and economic credentials for election 2007. Rudd is a serious pro-market politician dedicated to competition policy and productivity gains. He prizes his intellectual integrity. That integrity, along with his political authority, will be compromised if he bows to the detailed re-regulation of the labour market, resurrection of the award system, comprehensive collective bargaining rights and rights of workplace entry being pursued by the trade union movement.
How will he manage the party and the unions? In coming weeks Rudd faces a test of his political judgment and forensic skill.
Rudd must decide how far he rolls back Work Choices. He is trapped between two irresistible imperatives. He must take a tough line against Work Choices to stay true to the huge political and financial commitments made by the trade unions and the Labor Party, yet he cannot abandon economic credibility, which is his main claim to office.
The way Rudd resolves this dilemma will be pivotal to his election hopes. It seems he has yet to find the answer. This is an image as well as a policy dilemma. Rudd projects as the leader of the future with his education revolution and broadband plan, yet his campaign in lockstep with the trade unions to enshrine a "collective approach" to industrial relations threatens a return to the past.
Rudd knows that somehow he must find the right balance.
How does he win small business and contractors to the Labor Party yet satisfy the unions? How does he persuade corporate Australia that he is safe in economic terms when he pledges to repeal Work Choices? How does he present as an economic reformer while threatening to unwind one of the key reforms of the past twodecades?
On industrial relations, Howard is a conviction politician. His views have been known for 25 years and they are entrenched. Howard is vulnerable on Work Choices and he will re-examine his position. This may go beyond finetuning to a strengthening of the social safety net.
But Howard this year will champion the ideas and principle of Work Choices as basic to Australia's prosperity, its below 5 per cent unemployment, job creation and fairness (a job being the key to fairness).
Work Choices is not the gift for the Labor Party that the unions insist and the media hails. It is best seen as a gift and a risk.
It shows the clout, money and skill of the Labor-ACTU alliance that has tapped into and provoked a community alarm, yet it brings Labor and the unions into their tightest embrace for decades in the cause of resurrecting collective power and denying individuals and employers the right to enter into individual contracts.
Critical points in this debate have been overlooked. First, Work Choices is an economic issue that will see a clean break between Howard and Rudd, contrary to Rudd's strategy of aligning Labor as closely as possible with Howard's economic policy.
Labor and the unions see Work Choices as the pivotal election issue, yet there is every sign that Howard welcomes this contest.
The risk for Labor is that it wins the Work Choices battle but gives Howard the opening to win the bigger war over economic policy.
In recent days NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca said the Howard Government would be annihilated unless it changes Work Choices. Federal Opposition Deputy Leader Julia Gillard predicted that Work Choices "will be the single biggest issue on people's minds when they vote in the federal election".
As an opponent, Howard won't be NSW's Peter Debnam. Howard will plan his own scare campaign: by election time 20 per cent of workers in Western Australia and more than 750,000 nationwide will be on Australian Workplace Agreements that Labor will abolish. The more Labor backs rollback, the more convulsions its policy will unleash.
Howard will position industrial relations at the sharp end of the economic debate. He will welcome the chance to have Rudd locked into defending the award system, union rights and the centralised tribunal. This campaign would be the logical culmination of Howard's career (which is not to assume he will win).
Second, Rudd's industrial policy will be a compromise document that reflects his competing goals. He must retain significant elements of Work Choices to be credible. This was obvious from the style and content of Rudd's speech last week at Penrith with NSW Premier Morris Iemma. Giving a platform speech, Rudd looks and sounds like a technocrat. He shuns class-based polemics that have been the staple of Labor platform speeches for a century.
His rhetoric on Work Choices is a pledge for "fairness and flexibility": read fairness for the labour movement and flexibility for business. Blind Freddy can see that Rudd is searching for a middle path.
This was also apparent in Gillard's March 14 speech on industrial relations. Rudd and Gillard know their IR policy needs to be reformist and that it must reflect Labor's commitment to productivity and innovation. How they produce this from a mixture of common law contracts, stronger awards and legislated minimum conditions will test their creativity.
Third, contrary to claims by the trade union movement, Work Choices is not seriously disadvantaging large numbers of Australians. This finding is hardly a surprise. The ACNielson poll this month shows that of the 80 per cent of people who have heard of Work Choices, 72 per cent report it has made no difference to them. Only 21 per cent of this 80per cent think they are worse off and this figure is less than the 31 per cent who, two years earlier, expected to be made worse off.
Work Choices is an issue of perception, values and philosophy. This is confirmed by ACNielson pollster John Stirton, who said that rejection of Work Choices was "almost a philosophical opposition to what people understand Work Choices stands for". Stirton favoured the view that Work Choices did not really affect people so much as affect their perceptions. It is part of that vortex of contemporary insecurities: the worry that parents feel for their working kids, the fear of women that the workplace is becoming less friendly and suspicion that Howard, in Rudd's words, has gone "a bridge too far" in backing employers. This is not a battle of the hip pocket. It is a contest about ideas and power.
Remember that Rudd, unlike Howard, is an open book on industrial relations. He has yet to declare his real beliefs. This declaration in the form of his industrial relations policy will brand Rudd's values, reformism and economic credentials for election 2007. Rudd is a serious pro-market politician dedicated to competition policy and productivity gains. He prizes his intellectual integrity. That integrity, along with his political authority, will be compromised if he bows to the detailed re-regulation of the labour market, resurrection of the award system, comprehensive collective bargaining rights and rights of workplace entry being pursued by the trade union movement.
How will he manage the party and the unions? In coming weeks Rudd faces a test of his political judgment and forensic skill.
Rudd must decide how far he rolls back Work Choices. He is trapped between two irresistible imperatives. He must take a tough line against Work Choices to stay true to the huge political and financial commitments made by the trade unions and the Labor Party, yet he cannot abandon economic credibility, which is his main claim to office.
The way Rudd resolves this dilemma will be pivotal to his election hopes. It seems he has yet to find the answer. This is an image as well as a policy dilemma. Rudd projects as the leader of the future with his education revolution and broadband plan, yet his campaign in lockstep with the trade unions to enshrine a "collective approach" to industrial relations threatens a return to the past.
Rudd knows that somehow he must find the right balance.
How does he win small business and contractors to the Labor Party yet satisfy the unions? How does he persuade corporate Australia that he is safe in economic terms when he pledges to repeal Work Choices? How does he present as an economic reformer while threatening to unwind one of the key reforms of the past twodecades?
On industrial relations, Howard is a conviction politician. His views have been known for 25 years and they are entrenched. Howard is vulnerable on Work Choices and he will re-examine his position. This may go beyond finetuning to a strengthening of the social safety net.
But Howard this year will champion the ideas and principle of Work Choices as basic to Australia's prosperity, its below 5 per cent unemployment, job creation and fairness (a job being the key to fairness).
Work Choices is not the gift for the Labor Party that the unions insist and the media hails. It is best seen as a gift and a risk.
It shows the clout, money and skill of the Labor-ACTU alliance that has tapped into and provoked a community alarm, yet it brings Labor and the unions into their tightest embrace for decades in the cause of resurrecting collective power and denying individuals and employers the right to enter into individual contracts.
Critical points in this debate have been overlooked. First, Work Choices is an economic issue that will see a clean break between Howard and Rudd, contrary to Rudd's strategy of aligning Labor as closely as possible with Howard's economic policy.
Labor and the unions see Work Choices as the pivotal election issue, yet there is every sign that Howard welcomes this contest.
The risk for Labor is that it wins the Work Choices battle but gives Howard the opening to win the bigger war over economic policy.
In recent days NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca said the Howard Government would be annihilated unless it changes Work Choices. Federal Opposition Deputy Leader Julia Gillard predicted that Work Choices "will be the single biggest issue on people's minds when they vote in the federal election".
As an opponent, Howard won't be NSW's Peter Debnam. Howard will plan his own scare campaign: by election time 20 per cent of workers in Western Australia and more than 750,000 nationwide will be on Australian Workplace Agreements that Labor will abolish. The more Labor backs rollback, the more convulsions its policy will unleash.
Howard will position industrial relations at the sharp end of the economic debate. He will welcome the chance to have Rudd locked into defending the award system, union rights and the centralised tribunal. This campaign would be the logical culmination of Howard's career (which is not to assume he will win).
Second, Rudd's industrial policy will be a compromise document that reflects his competing goals. He must retain significant elements of Work Choices to be credible. This was obvious from the style and content of Rudd's speech last week at Penrith with NSW Premier Morris Iemma. Giving a platform speech, Rudd looks and sounds like a technocrat. He shuns class-based polemics that have been the staple of Labor platform speeches for a century.
His rhetoric on Work Choices is a pledge for "fairness and flexibility": read fairness for the labour movement and flexibility for business. Blind Freddy can see that Rudd is searching for a middle path.
This was also apparent in Gillard's March 14 speech on industrial relations. Rudd and Gillard know their IR policy needs to be reformist and that it must reflect Labor's commitment to productivity and innovation. How they produce this from a mixture of common law contracts, stronger awards and legislated minimum conditions will test their creativity.
Third, contrary to claims by the trade union movement, Work Choices is not seriously disadvantaging large numbers of Australians. This finding is hardly a surprise. The ACNielson poll this month shows that of the 80 per cent of people who have heard of Work Choices, 72 per cent report it has made no difference to them. Only 21 per cent of this 80per cent think they are worse off and this figure is less than the 31 per cent who, two years earlier, expected to be made worse off.
Work Choices is an issue of perception, values and philosophy. This is confirmed by ACNielson pollster John Stirton, who said that rejection of Work Choices was "almost a philosophical opposition to what people understand Work Choices stands for". Stirton favoured the view that Work Choices did not really affect people so much as affect their perceptions. It is part of that vortex of contemporary insecurities: the worry that parents feel for their working kids, the fear of women that the workplace is becoming less friendly and suspicion that Howard, in Rudd's words, has gone "a bridge too far" in backing employers. This is not a battle of the hip pocket. It is a contest about ideas and power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)