Tony Harris, former senior commonwealth officer and past auditor general of NSW writes in the AFR (27 Nov 07) that the test of Kevin Rudd's Labor government will be to maintain John Howard's economic legacy while restoring our democracy. Particularly perturbing to me has been the politicisation of the Australian Public Service. Although it is well able to advise the new government on implementation of its policies, which is its job, will the Rudd Government allow the public service to propose alternatives on difficult questions? Will the public service be able to resist the government if the government's intentions are frankly immoral, illegal, unjust or just plain stupid?

Rudd needs moral score

If John Howard were to summarise his legacy, he would emphasise economics. ... The coalition also undertook important structural improvements. ... There is a bevy of other beneficial, though not startling, economic reforms. … This economic legacy is commendable. But Australia is more than an economy.

And it is in non-economic matters where the Howard government was wanting and where it failed to convince voters. There were good moments, including the removal of the East Timor canker and the gun reduction program after Port Arthur. But the overwhelming mark of Howard's government was the supremacy of pragmatism over principle, politics over morality.

To achieve political mastery, Howard engaged in sophistry: providing soothing words instead of answering questions and accepting responsibility. He danced around the government's apparent illegality in the waterfront dispute. He denied the government's inept eagerness to wage an unjust war in Iraq. He never accepted responsibility for the government's false claims about children overboard.

Howard also diminished institutions important to democracy, He required his backbench to place the government's political needs above parliamentary democracy and only a few resisted him. He preferred ambition to propriety. If the government could prevent an inquiry, there was none. If the government wanted to keep information from the public, it was kept secret. The Howard government did not invent this behaviour, but it honed the style to a razor edge.

Although the coalition introduced a model public service act, one that requires public servants to act apolitically, it perverted the public service. The government taught officers to identify with its political goal. Ministers trained public servants to keep embarrassing information to themselves. The government ensured that departmental reports anticipated government preferences.

Oddly for a government whose philosophy was meant to emphasise individuality over the state, the Howard government reduced the rights of individuals. Asylum seekers who arrived by boat were imprisoned as a matter of policy. Contrary to worldwide practice and the spirit of the refugee convention, the coalition tried to deport uninvited refugees.

The Howard government granted sweeping anti-terrorism powers to police and security agencies, but it failed to ensure those powers were fairly exercised. And its agencies abused the law. There is a suspicion--hopefully to be explored by a foreshadowed inquiry into the Haneef affair--that political pressures caused illegal and unjustified treatment of Australians.

Finally, the Howard government diminished democracy by encouraging undisclosed political donations and by reducing the time available for new enrolments after an election is called.

The test for a Rudd government is to sustain the economic legacy it has inherited from the Howard government while repairing the damage done to Australia's important institutions and to democracy, It won't be long before we can measure its attempts.

In the election last Saturday, the Australian Greens:

• achieved over one million votes: the final count will near 1,080,000 compared with 917,000 in 2004;
• supplanted the coalition National Party as Australia's third largest political party;
• will go into the next Senate with 5 to 7 seats (1998 : 1 seat; 2001 : 2 seats; 2004 : 4 seats) and will hold or share the balance of power;
• passed the Senate quota with first preferences in a state (14.2%) for the first time, in Tasmania, with 17.74%;
• scored a new high national Senate vote (9.02%);
• scored a new high percentage Senate vote in any electorate (ACT : 22%);
• gave Labor the preference flow to win 21 seats, including Bass, Braddon, Bennelong and Bowman;
• may pass the Liberals in in the electorate of Melbourne to score over 22% (with candidate Adam Bandt); and
• increased their Northern Territory vote to 9% from 7.7% after opposing the Howard government's intervention laws (which Labor supported).

I am signatory no. 464,816 of Patrick Bonello's petition at Whales Revenge, seeking a million signatures opposing commercial whaling. Its words are simple and to the point.

We the undersigned wish to show our support for an end to commercial whaling. We believe that the slaughter of whales for so-called 'scientific reasons' is wrong. We wish to add our voices to the global campaign to protect these precious mammals from extinction.

The petition will be sent to Greenpeace, The International Whaling Commission and the Australian Federal Government.

Why not sign?

In last Sunday's Messiah rehearsal we sang ". . . and he shall reign, for ever and ever." It was fitting, as that day was the feast of Christ the King, or The Reign of Christ. Bread, pasta, rice and cakes are increasing in price, with failure of the cereal crops due to drought (not that I eat much of them). Preaching that morning, I found it hard to resist earnest but nonetheless poor puns praying for the "rain of Christ" so that it "shall rain for ever and for ever" (floods notwithstanding).

A few days before the election, I wrote that I found the now-defeated Howard Government "corrupt and incompetent". Philip Adams reminds me that I should have added "bigoted and immoral."

Why it's great to see him go
Phillip Adams Blog (The Australian 27 Nov 07)

Spare me the sentimental tosh about John Howard. Here's why his departure is a joyous occasion.

The scene: The Great Hall at the University of Sydney. The grand opening of a conference for the Centre for the Mind. Crowds have gathered to see Nelson Mandela cut the ribbon. As chairman of the advisory board it is my duty to welcome our patron, the Prime Minister. That long-time opponent of sanctions against apartheid South Africa will then welcome Mandela. When I complain bitterly about my chore, the vice-chancellor murmurs, "Protocol."

A last-minute phone call from a protocol officer in the PM's department.

"Do you really want to introduce the PM?" he asks.
"Of course I bloody well don't!"
"Yes, it would be a bit hypocritical."
"Not as hypocritical as the PM introducing Mandela."

The resolution? The Vice-Chancellor will introduce Howard. I'll move the vote of thanks. When I explain the change, Mandela isn't fussed but asks me: "How's Paul Keating getting on?"

This backstage kerfuffle is nothing to Malcolm Fraser's loud performance in front of the gathering dignitaries, including the PM. He tells of a crisis early in his prime ministership involving Vietnamese close to the Australian embassy. They are understandably desperate to be allowed into this country. Fraser phones Gough Whitlam, who agrees they should be welcomed. "So did my entire cabinet, except for one person. Guess who!" And he points the finger at Howard.

The scene: John Laws's 2UE studio in 1988. Anticipating One Nation by many years, Howard warns the nation of the dangers of Asian immigration. So outraged is the response to his statement that Howard loses his job as Opposition leader a year later.

The scene: A new prime minister manipulates Hansonism in the mid to late 1990s. Forget dog-whistle politics. In a campaign as deafening as any air raid siren, Howard declares war on multiculturalism and political correctness. White Australia rises from its grave. Bigotry is unleashed via an epidemic of racist graffiti, schoolyard attacks and shock-jock broadcasting. Thanks to the main parties' accommodation of One Nation, Australian racism is world news.

The scene: A few thousand refugees flee the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in 2001. Howard brands them queue jumpers, illegals and has cohorts hint that they're terrorists. The Tampa sails into view and our detention of decent people in concentration camps becomes an international disgrace. Kim Beazley rolls over. The ALP is complicit in this political pornography, this immense stunt. Kids overboard. The Australian Navy is appalled by what it's ordered to do. More than 350 die on the SievX. All this wins Howard another term.

The scene: 9/11. Howard jumps the queue to sign up for the misconceived war on terror and the horror story of the Iraq invasion. Immense numbers of Iraqis are killed. We are complicit in hundreds of thousands of deaths, in Abu Ghraib, in torture, in rendition. It isn't democracy that blossoms in the Middle East. It's terrorism. To this day Howard insists that the fiasco of Iraq is a success.

The scene: Guantanamo Bay. Howard permits the monstrous treatment of David Hicks.

The scene: The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission prepares Bringing Them Home, the tragic account of the stolen generations. Before publication date in 1997, Howard's bovver boys not only deride the document but slander Ronald Wilson. Historical revisionism kicks in. Reconciliation is rejected. The black-white divide deepens. Quadrant crows. Pauline Hanson is pleased.

The scene: The Kelly gang--the husbands of retiring member Jackie Kelly and her would-be replacement--are caught distributing a piece of crap designed to press the hot buttons on anti-Muslim bigotry. We're told this attempt to throw fuel on the world's most inflammatory issue is a prank. The PM promptly denies any knowledge of this dirtiest of dirty tricks, yet it sits within the culture of bigotry he has encouraged over many years.

The scene: As the election gains pace, Howard's immigration minister Kevin Andrews targets the alleged criminality of Sudanese refugees and immigrants. Déja vu all over again.

The scene: A few days before the election, Howard is asked to list his proudest achievements. Right up front he says the destruction of--yes--political correctness.

Is Howard a bigot? His support of apartheid South Africa, his long-term indifference to the issues of Aboriginal Australia, his exploitation of the refugee issue and his on-the-record hostility to Asian immigration would suggest so. Or is he a main-chancer, a cunning manipulator of other people's fears and racism? If the latter, isn't that morally worse? That's why I'm not shedding tears at Howard's departure. Because his fondness for the Menzies era involved the revival of too many aspects of White Australia. No other modern PM on either side of politics would have touched it with a barge pole.

Well said Mr Adams. I also hold Howard to account for his government's bigotry in endless vacillation on the rights of same-sex couples, for example his dishonouring of his government's promise to enact equal access to public sector superannuation benefits.

We joined the ritual of watching the election night count and broached a bottle when the result was clear. Sunday, the next day, was a long day. I preached at 8am and 10am, attended a liturgy planning meeting and sung in a 3-hour Messiah rehearsal in the evening. James is delighted with the Labor win. I am glad of it, but will also wait and see how Rudd performs before leaping for joy.

Bob Brown was deservedly delighted with the Greens' performance, but sadly Kerrie Tucker missed out. Both ACT Senators face the electorate whenever there is an election, and with only two Senators to elect, the quota for election is 33.3%. In the three previous elections, the Liberal first preference vote had been below this threshold and their candidate had scrambled home on minor party preferences.

Kerrie Tucker, who was a member of the ACT Legislative Assembly for nine years, was our Green Senate candidate in 2004 and 2007. In 2004 the Greens polled 16.4% of the vote. This time, the vote for Kerrie Tucker increased to about 22% but, even with the addition of surplus votes from Labor and with Democrat preferences, it has not been enough to unseat the Liberal Gary Humphries, who has gained a fraction over 34% of the votes thus far counted.

Yet the ACT is the 'Greenest' jurisdiction in Australia.

	2007	2004
Australian Labor Party	41%	41%
Liberal Party	34%	38%
The Greens	22%	17%
Australian Democrats	2%	2

The coalition will hold its one seat majority in the senate until July when the new senate sits for the first time, after which the Liberals and Nationals are likely to have 37 of the 76 seats, with Labor needing support from Family First, the Greens and independent Nick Xenophon to pass legislation. A tied vote in the Senate is a negative.

Liberal senators such as George Brandis say they will vote against some legislation; they say Labor has no mandate to repeal the former government's changes to labour laws. They may well block reforms to legislation relating to same sex couples. Even after 1 July, it will be tough to get them through.

37		Coalition (Liberals and Nationals)
32		Labor
5		Greens
1		Family First Party
1		Independent (Nick Xenophon)

The Bennelong count is an intriguing sideshow with the wonderfully ebullient Maxine McKew currently is ahead by 2439 votes. The superb Oz Politics site suggests that she would lose if Howard got something like more than 60 per cent of the absent, pre-poll and postal votes. In 2004, Howard got 57.6 per cent of them.

Congratulations to the Australian National University, and the Australian Capital Territory government which will defy federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull's rejection of its bid to co-host a $50 million national climate change centre. They will go ahead without federal government money, to establish a world-class research facility. And congratulations to Rosslyn Beeby andthe Canberra Times for reporting this today and yesterday.

It's encouraging when universities can show some independence and gumption.

"This is simply far too important and urgent for Australia not to have some of the nation's best scientists working together on climate change," ANU vice-chancellor Ian Chubb told the Canberra Times. Yesterday, the Canberra Times reported that minister Turnbull had overruled an expert panel's recommendation after pressure from Prime Minister John Howard to favour a rival bid led by a university in the Liberal seat of Moncrieff, on the Gold Coast.

Professor Chubb said the ANU and the ACT Government had agreed to commit $5 million in capital funding for a new building on campus to house the research centre. Work would begin as soon as possible, and key research projects had already been identified. "We don't have to wait for the building to be finished to start work. Climate change is a pressing issue and we already have the necessary expertise and the research programs up and running. We don't need to delay, we can start tonight or tomorrow to deliver the research Australia needs."

Professor Chubb said the ANU would maintain and strengthen links forged with members of the Universities Climate Consortium, and work to spearhead national leadership in climate change research and policy. "A singularly significant group of scientists formed the base for the original consortium and none of us want that energy and talent to dissipate. . . . Adapting to the inevitable climatic changes impacting on Australia over the coming decades is one of the biggest challenges facing the nation. As the national university, we need to take a lead in producing the high quality knowledge needed to underpin effective adaptation."

The centre will be lead by the director of the Fenner School of Environment and Society, international climate change expert, Will Steffen. "We have discussed the matter with our partner universities and agreed the research is so important we should probably ignore the political process and proceed anyway," Professor Steffen said.

As well as coordinating a national research effort, the new ANU centre will focus strongly on climate change issues in the ACT, and work with CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, the ACT Government and the University of Canberra to identify and manage climate change challenges that are likely to intensify throughout the region. A core group of 30 researchers across various departments at the ANU have already pooled expertise on a broad range of social, economic, scientific and policy research.

I needed to do a medical inventory recently.

Well . . . from the top down, there's high frequency tinnitus and high frequency hearing loss, keratoconus (one eye), presbyopia and slight myopia, as well as hyposmia and specific anosmia. Bruxism causes dental agonies, and assorted weak teeth and fillings.

There's specific osteoarthritis consequent on infantile poliomyelitis and subsequent post polio syndrome which also can engender mild anxiety and (in the past, now recovered) some depression. The polio also caused loss of movement and shortened bones.

Then there is some manageable hypercholesterolemia and that curse of the middle aged male BPH, not to mention other nuisances further to the north and south.

I need orthotics to keep me on the straight and narrow and I'm no athlete, but need to watch out against their foot.

Ridiculous isn't it? I'm quite healthy actually!

And I do not have hypochondria!

I firmly believe that God is a healing God, and I'm interested in learning more about the work of the Order of St. Luke the Physician which teaches and practices Christian healing ministry

The picture is of a sacred moment and the chair of St. Augustine. Yet this comment on Archbishops Rowan's see is more of an opportunity for a cartoon.

"Falling off the fence: Rowan Williams and the Church of England can no longer remain aloof from convulsions threatening to tear the Anglican communion apart." Andrew Brown. The Guardian 17 Nov 07:

If you balance your episcopal throne on the fence, you will look rather silly when the fence is knocked down. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams looks silly all right as he contemplates the collapse of the boundaries that structured the Anglican communion, the group of notionally 80 million (actually, perhaps 50 million) Christians that he notionally leads and actually just exhorts, like a rugby referee without a whistle whom the scrum ignores.

But looking silly is not his most serious problem. . . . There is a precise definition of schism in a church that has bishops . . . there can only be one real bishop in any diocese; where there are more, there is schism, and the claim that the others aren't really proper Christians at all.

This need not matter unless everybody wants it to . . . [but] outside England, where churches must compete for membership, it matters a lot. The trouble, from Williams' perspective is that the Church of England can no longer be kept aloof from the convulsions outside as it too descends from establishment into the market place. . . . The flames of theological hatred outside have run all round the world as if the Internet were made with gunpowder fuses instead of cables.

It is the theological understanding that makes this argument so hard to control. Most churches, most of the time, don't give a damn for theology. That's one of the things that atheists get wrong about religion. They think it is about propositional beliefs, rather than rituals and belonging. And so they assume that the dispute in the Anglican Communion is really about gays. But if it were, it would be possible to reach a compromise, as has been done about women, where people at least pretend to accept each others' viewpoint.

By elevating the dispute to a matter of theological principle, both sides are now saying that compromise is impossible, and that trying for it is wrong. This is Williams' real defeat. When he was merely the Archbishop of Wales, 10 years ago, and still a respected theologian, he was asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference on the subject--important even then--of how Anglicans should resolve their disputes. He told 800 bishops gathered from all round the world into a hot marquee on the campus of the University of Kent that they should listen to one another. He quoted Wittgenstein to the effect that sometimes the most important thing a philosopher can say to another is "give me time". At the time I wondered what weight his sweating, angry audience would give to the opinions of a gay Jewish atheist but I admired Williams for thinking that they should. They didn't. Now his time, too, has run out.

If Brown is correct, Archbishop Rowan is out of time, but for the wrong reasons--the impatience of others and their unwillingness to listen and to consider that, just possibly, they need to change.

In an article (SMH, 19 Nov 06) based on his recent Griffith Lecture, Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia observes that "Freedom of religion does not have an easy relationship with revealed religions. It is difficult for many believers to tolerate the postulate of error: the possibility that another God or earthly messenger may exist, different from their own, or indeed that there may be no God."

Justice Kirby writes about Lina Joy, a Malaysian woman who was born a Muslim but has converted to Christianity, taken a non-Muslim name, and wishes to marry a Christian. Malaysia's highest court, by a majority of two to one, has refused to allow the designation of her religion as Muslim to be changed on her identity card, thus making it impossible under Malaysian law for her to marry a non-Muslim.

Justice Kirby comments:

In earlier times Christianity had a very similar approach to renouncing religion. It was most evident during the bloody wars, forced conversions and burnings of heretics that accompanied the Christian Reformation and Counter Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church of my youth in Australia did not permit Protestants to marry in its churches. This was only 50 years ago. We have overcome this sectarian divide.

. . . In Australia the case of Lina Joy has come as a surprise. We are entitled to express our concern about it. We know the one universal principle that is shared by all the world's great religions is the Golden Rule. To do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you.

One of the foremost critics of the Lina Joy decision was Dr Thio Li-ann of the National University of Singapore. She observed: "There is a certain agony about this case, which at its heart concerns a woman who wishes to make a change in religious profession and to marry and have a family."

When I read this critique I applauded Dr Thio's views. Imagine my disappointment to read the Hansard record of remarks by the same Dr Thio, a couple of weeks ago, as a member of the Parliament of Singapore, opposing proposals to repeal the criminal laws of Singapore directed against homosexual men.

Speaking from a standpoint as a Christian believer, Dr Thio rallied the opposition to reform. She denounced "the sexual libertine ethos of the wild, wild West". She declared "you cannot make a human wrong a human right". She warned against "slouching back to Sodom". We have all heard all this type of language from religious zealots in Australia. Fortunately, recent evidence suggests that we are growing up.

My point is that it is not good enough for Christians, or people of the Christian tradition, to be selective about tolerance and acceptance. We cannot selectively denounce Islam for its views on apostasy but then do equally nasty and cruel things to others by invoking imperfect understandings of our own religious tradition.

Universal human rights are needed to permit each and every one of us to fulfil ourselves as our unique human natures, intelligence and moral sense demand. For Lina Joy and her fiance this means the freedom to worship God as they believe, and to marry and live in their own country. For a homosexual man in Singapore, it means freedom from the fear of harassment and humiliation by outdated criminal laws.

Lina Joy should have our support because she is a human being standing up for the integrity of her basic rights. Those rights are not, as the majority judges in Malaysia said of her case, her "whims and fancies". They are precious manifestations of deep-seated human feelings that express part of the very essence of what it is to be a human being.

A difficult relationship between human freedom and revealed religion occurs when believers find it impossible even to consider that they may be wrong.

Yet it is a well established principle that a proposition cannot be argued as true unless it is potentially falsifiable. That is there must be at least some possibility that it might be found to be wrong. To allow this possibility requires liberty and tolerance, allowing of others to think and believe differently. It requires faith.

If Christians are intolerant, they deny the truthfulness of their own beliefs. We Christians rely not on irrefutable propositions, but on faith, which is "the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen." There is no faith in intolerance.

Associated Press reports that Norway's state Lutheran church has lifted an outright ban on allowing those living in homosexual partnerships to serve in the clergy, but will leave it up to each bishop to make individual decisions on whether to employ them, reflecting the need for flexibility and compromise in the face of division on the matter.

I refer to this here because it is an example of a sensible response to the current divisions about sexuality. After long, careful and difficult debate, the Norwegian church is not of the one mind. Therefore it has allowed conscientious freedom and not enforced a contrived uniformity. Unity does not require uniformity.

After an anguished week of debate at its annual meeting, the church's 86-member governing synod voted 50-34 to make the change. Two members abstained. . . . The decision means that six of Norway's 11 bishops are likely to open the pulpit to gay clergy in partnerships. In a vote earlier in the year, those six bishops voted in favor of easing the ban.

The church already allows gays to serve in the clergy as long as they are not living in a homosexual partnership. . . . The synod's vote was a compromise revision of a 1997 resolution by the highest body in Norway's state Protestant church that barred all clergy who enter homosexual partnerships from holding consecrated jobs.

. . . Under Norwegian law, people in gay partnerships have the same rights as those in heterosexual marriages, apart from church weddings and adoption.

The church, with nearly 85 percent of Norway's 4.7 million people as members, has remained locked in a heated debate on the topic. . . . In 2000, the Norwegian government, which formally employs all state church staff, upheld the appointment of Jens Torstein Olsen as a clergyman in Oslo, even though he lived with a gay partner in violation of the 1997 church decision.

None of this is spectacularly new, but it is important and comes from an authoritative source.

Royal College of Psychiatrists: submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.

This report is prepared by a Special Interest Group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We have limited our comments to areas that pertain to the origins of sexuality and the psychological and social well being of lesbian, gay and bisexual people (LGB), which we believe will inform the Church of England's listening exercise.

Introduction

The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that LGB people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.

We shall address a number of issues that arise from our expertise in this area with the aim of informing the debate within the Church of England about homosexual people. These concern the history of the relationship between psychiatry and LGB people, determinants of sexual orientation, the mental health and well being of LGB people, their access to psychotherapy and the kinds of psychotherapy that can be harmful.

1. The history of psychiatry with LGB people.

Opposition to homosexuality in Europe reached a peak in the nineteenth century. What had earlier been regarded as a vice, evolved into a perversion or psychological illness. Official sanction of homosexuality both as illness and (for men) a crime led to discrimination, inhumane treatments and shame, guilt and fear for gay men and lesbians (1). However, things began to change for the better some 30 years ago when in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organisation followed suit in 1992. This unfortunate history demonstrates how marginalisation of a group of people who have a particular personality feature (in this case homosexuality) can lead to harmful medical practice and a basis for discrimination in society.

2. The origins of homosexuality

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (2). It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors (3) and the early uterine environment (4). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is. Thus LGB people have exactly the same rights and responsibilities concerning the expression of their sexuality as heterosexual people. However, until the beginning of more liberal social attitudes to homosexuality in the past two decades, prejudice and discrimination against homosexuality induced considerable embarrassment and shame in many LGB people and did little to encourage them to lead sex lives that are respectful of themselves and others. We return to the stability of LGB partnerships below.

3. Psychological and social well being of LGB people

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems (5, 6). Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim (7).

4. Stability of gay and lesbian relationships

There appears to be considerable variability in the quality and durability of same-sex, cohabiting relationships (8, 9). A large part of the instability in gay and lesbian partnerships arises from lack of support within society, the church or the family for such relationships. Since the introduction of the first civil partnership law in 1989 in Denmark, legal recognition of same-sex relationships has been debated around the world. Civil partnership agreements were conceived out of a concern that same-sex couples have no protection in law in circumstances of death or break-up of the relationship. There is already good evidence that marriage confers health benefits on heterosexual men and women (10, 11) and similar benefits could accrue from same-sex civil unions. Legal and social recognition of same-sex relationships is likely to reduce discrimination, increase the stability of same sex relationships and lead to better physical and mental health for gay and lesbian people. It is difficult to understand opposition to civil partnerships for a group of socially marginalised people who cannot marry and who as a consequence may experience more unstable partnerships. It cannot offer a threat to the stability of heterosexual marriage. Legal recognition of civil partnerships seems likely to stabilise same-sex relationships, create a focus for celebration with families and friends and provide vital protection at time of dissolution (12). Gay men and lesbians' vulnerability to mental disorders may diminish in societies that recognise their relationships as valuable and become more accepting of them as respected members of society who might meet prospective partners at places of work and in other such settings that are taken for granted by heterosexual people.

5. Psychotherapy and reparative therapy for LGB people

The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy recently commissioned a systematic review of the world's literature on LGB people's experiences with psychotherapy (13). This evidence shows that LGB people are open to seeking help for mental health problems. However, they may be misunderstood by therapists who regard their homosexuality as the root cause of any presenting problem such as depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client's sexual orientation (14). This can be deeply damaging. Although there is now a number of therapists and organisation in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible. The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field. There are however at least two studies that have followed up LGB people who have undergone therapy with the aim of becoming heterosexual. Neither attempted to assess the patients before receiving therapy and both relied on the subjective accounts of people, who were asked to volunteer by the therapy organisations themselves (15) or who were recruited via the Internet (16). The first study claimed that change was possible for a small minority (13%) of LGB people, most of whom could be regarded as bisexual at the outset of therapy (15). The second showed little effect as well as considerable harm (16). Meanwhile, we know from historical evidence that treatments to change sexual orientation that were common in the 1960s and 1970s were very damaging to those patients who underwent them and affected no change in their sexual orientation (1, 17, 18).

Conclusions

In conclusion the evidence would suggest that there is no scientific or rational reason for treating LGB people any differently to their heterosexual counterparts. People are happiest and are likely to reach their potential when they are able to integrate the various aspects of the self as fully as possible (19). Socially inclusive, non-judgemental attitudes to LGB people who attend places of worship or who are religious leaders themselves will have positive consequences for LGB people as well as for the wider society in which they live.

Professor Michael King

Report prepared by the Special Interest Group in Gay and Lesbian Mental Health of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
31st October 2007

Reference List
(1) King M, Bartlett A. British psychiatry and homosexuality. Br J Psychiatry 1999 August;175:106-13.
(2) Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities : a study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1978.
(3) Mustanski BS, DuPree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH. A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Human Genetics 2005 March 17;116(4):272-8.
(4) Blanchard R, Cantor JM, Bogaert AF, Breedlove SM, Ellis L. Interaction of fraternal birth order and handedness in the development of male homosexuality. Hormones and Behavior 2006 March;49(3):405-14.
(5) King M, McKeown E, Warner J et al. Mental health and quality of life of gay men and lesbians in England and Wales: controlled, cross-sectional study. Br J Psychiatry 2003 December;183:552-8.
(6) Gilman SE, Cochran SD, Mays VM, Hughes M, Ostrow D, Kessler RC. Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbidity Survey. Am J Public Health 2001 June;91(6):933-9.
(7) Bailey JM. Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999 October;56(10):883-4.
(8) Mays VM, Cochran SD. Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Am J Public Health 2001 November;91(11):1869-76.
(9) McWhirter DP, Mattison AM. Male couples. In: Cabaj R, Stein TS, editors. Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health.Washington: American Psychiatric Press; 1996.
(10) Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Newton TL. Marriage and health: his and hers. Psychol Bull 2001 July;127(4):472-503.
(11) Johnson NJ, Backlund E, Sorlie PD, Loveless CA. Marital status and mortality: the national longitudinal mortality study. Ann Epidemiol 2000 May;10(4):224-38.
(12) King M, Bartlett A. What same sex civil partnerships may mean for health. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006 March 1;60(3):188-91.
(13) King M, Semlyen J, Killaspy H, Nazareth I, Osborn DP. A systematic review of research on counselling and psychotherapy for lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender people. Lutterworth: BACP; 2007.
(14) Bartlett A, King M, Phillips P. Straight talking: an investigation of the attitudes and practice of psychoanalysts and psychotherapists in relation to gays and lesbians. Br J Psychiatry 2001 December;179:545-9.
(15) Spitzer RL. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Arch Sex Behav 2003 October;32(5):403-17.
(16) Shidlo A, Schroeder M. Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2002;33:249-59.
(17) King M, Smith G, Bartlett A. Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950s--an oral history: the experience of professionals. BMJ 2004 February 21;328(7437):429.
(18) Smith G, Bartlett A, King M. Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950s--an oral history: the experience of patients. BMJ 2004 February 21;328(7437):427.
(19) Haldeman DC. Gay Rights, Patient Rights: The Implications of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy. Professional Psychology - Research & Practice 2002;33(3):260-4.

At first, I wasn't sure I had the energy to sing Messiah this year. But the masterly music soon changed that. And who could resist Emmanuel, our mascot caterpillar? (Just think "caterpillar, caterpillar, caterpillar" as you struggle to sing the coloratura.) Why Emmanuel? Because, as the Book says "they shall call his name . . . ".

The Centre for an Ethical Society is an autonomous mainstream Christian not-for-profit body which seeks to promote Christian social justice within Australia's democratic traditions and to cooperate in the development of a more just and compassionate Australia." It is supported by leaders of the Catholic, Anglican and protestant churches and convened by the Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, the Rt Revd George Browning.

The Centre has published a Social Justice Survey Analysis for the 2007 Federal Election, based on a questionnaire. It shows clearly that the present Liberal and National party government performs very poorly.

The Labor Party is better, but its weaknesses are clear--mainly in areas where it must pander to popularism in order to gain votes.

The Democrats and Greens do best on issues of social justice. It is not the right wing ideologues that offer the best response to Christian values, but the centre-left moderates. (The coalition provided a long document, but did not answer the questionnaire, making is difficult to evaluate its response.)

Each of the 16 issues were rated on the following 1 to 5 scale:

• 5   Recognises problem, and puts forward practical ways to find a solution which accords with Christian Social Justice Principles.
• 4   Recognises problem has acceptable approach which accords with Christian Social Justice Principles but some details lacking.
• 3   Largely recognises problem and has some approaches to dealing with it which accords with Christian Social Justice Principles.
• 2   Problem not fully recognised and/or approaches to deal with it vague or are not fully in accord with Christian Social Justice Principles.
• 1   Problem not recognised and/or no ways proposed to deal with it or are not in accord with Christian Social Justice Principles.

Issue No.	Subject	Greens	Democrats	ALP	Coalition
1	Vision	5	5	5	2
2	Effective Democracy	5	5	4	2
3	Government Structure	5	5	5	1
4	Poverty Reduction	4	4	4	2
5	Indigenous Affairs	5	5	4	2
6	Industrial Relations	5	5	4	3
7	Education	4	5	5	3
8	Skills Shortage	5	5	5	3
9	Housing	4	5	4	2
10	Health	4	5	4	2
11	Welfare Reforms	4	4	3	1
12	Middle Class Welfare	4	4	3	2
13	Climate Change	5	5	4	3
14	Refugees	5	5	3	2
15	Peacemaking	5	5	5	3
16	Millenium Goals	5	5	4	4
TOTALS		74	77	66	37

St. Philip's Community Fair last Saturday was great fun and a good success.

A crowd of people enjoyed food, drink and each other's company--as well as live music from CAMRA.

Helen's photo shows people relaxing in the famous St. Philip's courtyard, under the massive plane tree. Leighton, James and I served hundreds of drinks. Others sold meals, cakes, jewelry and crafts, art works, plants and books.

There was all sorts of fun for the kids, too. And hopefully our local community found St. Philip's to be a friendly, hospitable place.

I am most glad to read that in the little over a year since it was publicly launched, the Save Canterbury Cathedral Appeal has raised over £7 million of the £50 million urgently needed for an extensive conservation and development program for the Cathedral.

Canterbury Cathedral costs over £12,000 per day to run and relies entirely on its own resources and donations. During the last year work has been done on the cathedral to restore its stonework and roofs. In addition monitoring equipment has been installed to keep track of the effects of environmental changes on the 12th century stained glass windows. The work of the past year shows how right the decision was to launch the appeal. The appeal also introduced Sponsor a Stone and Sponsor a Lead Tile schemes to allow contributors to play a more personal role towards restoring the Cathedral building.

The Cathedral was founded in 597 by St Augustine and encompasses the finest 12th Century stained glass and earliest Gothic building in the England. It is suffering serious damage through a combination of old age and modern pollution. Already urgent are repairs to alleviate health and safety hazards that threaten to restrict access. Conservation of the main fabric of the building is a priority; parts of the roof leak badly and masonry are crumbling. Conservation and protection of the stained glass is required. Repairs to the main Cathedral entrance, Christ Church Gate and the Choir House and other Cathedral building are also urgent. Refurbishment of the organ and improvements to the Cathedral's electrical, audio-visual, heating and lighting systems are also needed.


I visited the Cathedral on Tuesday 19 October 1993. For me it was the most moving experience of my visit to England. The Cathedral stood as an ancient and enduring testimony to the "faith once delivered to the saints".

As I ended my visit, a service bell was calling people to Evensong and the setting sun was reflected in the mellow tones of the Cathedral's stones.

I bought this souvenir booklet in French (which I can read) as the English ones were sold out. It is difficult to get a good view of the whole Cathedral as it is surrounded by unsympathetic neighbouring buildings. In my small experience of spiritual World Heritage sites, Canterbury and the Bulguksa temple in Korea have been the most remarkable.

Despite our present troubles, perhaps the See of Canterbury and its Cathedral may yet endure as symbols of the common faith of Anglicans and the "faith once delivered to the saints."

The Coalition has made an election promise to extend superannuation death benefits to all Commonwealth employees in interdependent relationships, including same-sex couples. Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull (whose electorate includes Sydney suburbs where many gay people live) made the announcement at a dinner hosted by the Sydney Gay and Lesbian business association in Sydney tonight.

Mr Turnbull says he is opposed to discrimination against same-sex couples. "I'm delighted to be able to announce to you tonight that if re-elected, the Coalition will extend the eligibility for death benefits under the Australian Government-defined benefit super schemes to independent relationships, which of course includes same sex couples," he said.

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle welcomed the announcement but believe the Federal Government needs to go further on the issue of gay rites. "Why when the Government voted against this change in recent sittings of Parliament, are they now, two weeks before an election, making this kind of announcement?" she said. "I think it's another example of the Federal Government using the gay and lesbian community to promise one thing and yet not deliver."

Emily Gray from the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby says she was also pleased by Mr Turnbull's announcement but doubted the impact it would have on the gay community. "In the scheme of things we believe it is not a very significant announcement. There remain over 58 laws that still remain discriminatory according to HREOC," she said.

Maybe it won't have much impact on gays and lesbian in Wentworth. But it is very important for the thousands of gay and lesbian people who work for the Australian Government, including me.

But does the announcement include reversionary pensions? Under the Commonwealth Super scheme, where a pension recipient member in a married or de facto partnership dies, then his/her surviving spouse will receive that pension, although usually at a reduced rate. Mr Turnbull has only mentioned death benefits, that is, lump sum payments when a member dies while still in employment. If the Howard Government is serious about equality, it must include reversionary pensions.

Trouble is, I simply don't believe, Mr Turnbull, even though he has been outstanding as an advocate within the government for the rights of same-sex couples. Senator Nettle is right. The Howard government promised to do this years ago, but has done nothing.

Phillip Coorey give more detail in the Sydney Morning Herald (8 Nov 07)

The Coalition has relented to pressure and will grant to gay and lesbian couples the same rights on Commonwealth public sector superannuation as heterosexual couples. Malcolm Turnbull, who is under considerable political pressure from the sizeable gay community in his seat of Wentworth, flagged the changes in a speech to a gay and lesbian business leaders function last night. They will be confirmed today.

While the Coalition will not grant gay couples de facto status, or adopt any of the other 58 recommendations outlined in a human rights report in June, it will allow, if re-elected, interdependent gay couples to share each other's public pensions and super benefits--as heterosexual couples do. It will apply across the Commonwealth public service, ranging from judges, politicians to public servants and the military. Labor has already promised to institute all 58 changes, saying it was unfair to discriminate financially against people on the basis of them being gay. In 2004 such discrimination was abolished in relation to private sector superannuation.

. . . Mr Turnbull said it was a very substantial reform that affected thousands of people and "will in a practical and material way remove this form of discrimination against same-sex couples".

Before the election was called, cabinet was split on whether to extend to gay couples the same legal and financial rights as heterosexual couples. . . . Granting the rights to gay couples does not legalise same-sex marriage, which both major parties oppose. The issue was first highlighted in June when the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission published a report finding same-sex couples were discriminated against in 58 areas of financial and work-related entitlements.

The High Court's Justice Michael Kirby spoke out. He wanted the law to be changed so that his partner of 38 years, Johan van Vloten, could have access to a part-pension payable for life, should Justice Kirby die first. Under current law, if a retired judge in a heterosexual relationship dies before his or her partner, the partner is entitled to 62.5 per cent of the judge's pension. But Mr van Vloten would not receive anything because he is not female. Mr Turnbull was unsuccessful in pushing the changes through cabinet and further deliberation was postponed until after the election. But with Mr Turnbull in trouble in his seat, and his Labor rival, George Newhouse, supporting the change, the Coalition has made the promise now.

These two letters to the SMH (9 Nov 07) tell the story.

Malcolm Turnbull sounds very proud of his Government--and indeed himself--deigning to provide access to public sector superannuation for same-sex couples. But perhaps someone needs to remind Mr Turnbull that all that is happening is action on a promise the Government made over three years ago while they were busy banning gays from getting married. No doubt it's in Mr Turnbull's electoral interests to present himself as the champion of this concession now that Wentworth has so many more same-sex couples than at the last election but, as one half of such a couple, I can say this is far too little, too late. Forcing his Government to act on a commitment it made long ago, so that Mr Turnbull has a buffer against a lot of angry constituents, is nothing to be proud of. -- Sam Butler Woollahra

Please, Mr Turnbull, we're gay, not intellectually challenged. We might fancy members of our own sex but we still own a number of brain cells as our hetero brothers and sisters. Do you seriously believe that two weeks out from the election you can pledge to adopt one, I repeat one, of the 58 recommendations outlined in a human rights report regarding same-sex couples, knowing that the federal Labor Party had already promised to institute all 58, and then expect gay and lesbian constituents to flock to polling booths around the country to return you and your conservative geniuses to office? Hardly, sunshine. -- Max Fischer Scarborough

Canberra's business groups are annoyed that the Territory Government has made tomorrow, Tuesday 6 November, a public holiday -- the day of the Melbourne Cup. They say they will lose almost $300 million because of the holiday. They usually make money from the Cup Day festivities. Facing drastically reduced trade and higher costs, most will shut for the day. The ACT Government made Melbourne Cup day a holiday because the federal WorkChoices laws abolished Canberra's traditional union picnic day. Canberrans have embraced the holiday. Thousands have taken off for a four-day break and left for the hills, Sydney or the coast.

Yesterday, All Saints' Day was to be celebrated in our small parish church in a big way, as we do every year, this time with special liturgy and Schubert's Mass in G. We're too small to have a full choir every week, but for this event twenty experienced singers were assembled (including yours truly), with three good soloists, an organist and a small string orchestra. There were eight rehearsals. Special intercessions were written (by me). An order of service was printed, plus notes on the music (me again). A full sanctuary team lined up--priest, deacon, thurifer, acolytes, crucifer, readers (including guess who) -- the lot. Our Rector preached superbly.

Weeks and hours of work and preparation, especially by our Music Director, Colin and the Rector, Rob.

Just twenty one people attended, half of them visitors.

So much for public holiday weekends in Canberra.

I was a stew of emotions. Anger at the apparent waste of effort. Exasperation and frustration because even those who weren't out of town on holiday stayed at home. Weepiness as we remembered the faithful departed. Exaltation from the fine music.

And finally gentle befuddlement, as James and I drowned the event in a bottle of sparkling wine.

In an agreement announced yesterday Labor is to direct its Senate preferences to the Greens in every state and territory. In return, the Greens will direct their preferences to Labor in the House of Representatives in Tasmania, after first preferring the unlikely-to-be elected Democrats.

Labor's Kate Lundy is expected to win easily the quota of 33.3% needed to take one of the ACT's two seats. Her possible surplus of about 14% wopuld largely go to the Greens Kerrie Tucker, whom the polls say will get 17% of the primary vote. That total of about 30%, plus the bulk of preferences from the Democrats should put Ms Tucker ahead of the Liberal, Gary Humphries, expected to win 24%.

In all, the Greens could have a total of 7 Senate seats nationwide, Labor 33 and the Coalition 34. The Greens and Labor combined would have the numbers to outvote the Coalition.

I shall be doing my small part to help Ms Tucker win.

This editorial from the National Catholic Reporter (2 Nov 07) has wisdom for Anglicans as well.

Closing the door on ourselves

When the musical "Fiddler on the Roof" first opened on Broadway back in 1964, few could have predicted that this tale of a Jewish father struggling to preserve tradition and at the same time to love his five tradition-breaking daughters would become a metaphor for families coping through the 1960s and '70s with shattering social and religious change.

Recently another father and daughter struggling to resolve differences -- a lesbian lifestyle that challenged his Catholic beliefs -- were barred by archdiocesan pressure from telling their story at a welcoming Catholic parish in Minneapolis. Besides generating publicity for the book that recounts the painful father-daughter exchange, the official decision raises again some equally painful questions about the relationship between struggling Catholics and their church.

Church leaders, of course, have boxed themselves in with tortuous logic on homosexuality that strains to reconcile loving the sinner, hating the sin, accepting those with the orientation (albeit "intrinsically disordered"), and then inviting them to make peace with their church -- once they have renounced their need for sexual intimacy.

The church once viewed itself as a home for everyone and its children as works in progress. The church once had room for all who were a day late and a dollar short of the ideal, whose private lives were compromised by infidelity, racism, addictions, larceny and deception. Sunday Mass was the gathering place for the seven capital sinners, dressed up, mixed up, and trying their best, it was assumed, to navigate life's contradictions.

Tevye comes to mind again. What guided him in his quandary over his daughters was the image of the village fiddler on his precarious rooftop perch, playing away as the father soliloquized "on the one hand" to "on the other hand," finally resolving that, whatever his daughters did, they would always be his children, always be loved.

Unfortunately, today's Catholic leaders, in pursuit of "Catholic identity," are increasingly less likely to view the church as a gathering place for the faithful-but-flawed. As episcopally fueled battles heat up over who can approach the altar, and who will sort out the sinners from the worthy at Communion time, the locus of exclusion has widened to include not only the altar, but "church property." Any parish, Catholic high school, college or university, retreat center or medical center had better think twice about hosting controversy, frank discussion, perceived criticism of church policy, prayer services for unapproved themes or any ecumenical event that attracts vituperative e-mails or faxes from those who see scandal and blasphemy everywhere.

In 1997, the U.S. Catholic bishops' Committee on Marriage and the Family -- in the best of Catholic tradition -- issued a pastoral letter for Catholic families dealing with homosexuality. They called it "Always Our Children." Its concluding paragraph, addressed to Catholic homosexuals, says: " Though at times you may feel discouraged, hurt, or angry, do not walk away from your families, from the Christian community, from all those who love you. In you God's love is revealed. You are always our children."

The text would make a wonderful note taped to the church door for returning gays and lesbians trying to resolve their sexual orientation and their faith in stable, productive lives. Except that in an increasing number of cases, they find the church doors locked.

So where then, when our lives get complicated, when our children turn out different from what we thought they would, when controversy invades our homes, do we go? If Catholics can't turn to their churches as the most appropriate place for hearing one another's stories and, through them, finding balance and compassion, where will we do the work of reconciliation that makes us church?

In the 1980s, former Minister for Science, Dr Barry Jones, was ridiculed for his Commission for the Future, which warned about global warming and climate change. Now Philip Adams rightly recalls just how wise Jones was and how prescient the Commission was -- and gives us yet another reason to get rid of Howard's appalling government.

Vote change of climate, Phillip Adams The Australian, 3 Nov 07

A variation of the argument Pascal applied to belief in God can be applied to climate change. Pascal's "wager" says it's better to bet on God's existence than against it. If he exists, you'll be an eternal winner; if not, you've lost nothing. On the other hand, Pascal argued, to bet against God and to lose means you've lost everything.

For years John Howard joined George Bush in betting against the reality of climate change. On this issue these Christian gentlemen were effectively atheists. And they've been proved disastrously wrong. Now they're being politically punished. Trouble is, so are the rest of us.

In the '80s, the Commission for the Future was established by Barry Jones, the Hawke government's minister for science. I was chairman and Professor Ian Lowe was CEO. We chose the greenhouse effect, as this fatal phenomenon was then known, as our focus. We published documents, convened conferences, imported experts, held meetings in town halls across Australia. There was a dramatic response from scientists and public alike but a negligible reaction from our politicians.

At the time the problem wasn't denial. The climate change conspiracy theorists were yet to emerge. Nor was it a question of party-line hostilities -- they, too, would emerge much later. Indeed, more concern was shown for the issue on the conservative side. The problem was just that it was early days for anxiety. What the Commission for the Future was shouting about belonged to … the future.

Not that we were being loud or angry. Anything but. Prior to the rise of "risk management" as both a fundamental ingredient in business and an increasingly influential profession, we were proposing the wisdom of Pascal's wager. In everything we said and published we stressed the same point. It is safer, better, wiser to act on the assumption that global warming is a major threat. If proven to be true, Australia will be years ahead. If we're proved wrong, we'll still have gained. We'll have reduced pollution. We'll have cleaner air, purer water.

Come John Howard's watch we'd lost the bet. Like Bush, he listened to the wrong people. The famous vested interests. Having closed down the Commission for the Future, Howard harkened to Hugh Morgan and his fellow miners. The PM preferred the soothing views of the deniers among right-wing think-tanks and punditry to those of the scientists. Howard saw climate change (Bush's soft-pedal term for the crisis) as some sort of insidious, ideological attack on the very lifeblood of capitalism.

In short, there was no risk assessment. No insurance. No safeguards. And in an appalling piece of symbolism, no Kyoto. Now with our rivers dying, dams drying and our cities and food production in crisis, he admits there is a problem. And he expects to be taken seriously and gratefully as the nation's saviour.

Oh, and he reckons nuclear power is the answer. And more uranium mining. The nuclear power industry was on its last legs, dying everywhere. For good reason. It's immensely costly, increases dangers of weapon proliferation, poses huge problems with waste disposal and the decommissioning of plants.

It will take decades to build nuclear plants. And did you know that the much-vaunted value of uranium is somewhat exaggerated? It's just 1 per cent of our mining exports. As Ian Lowe points out in the latest Quarterly Essay -- demolishing Howard's nuclear arguments -- Australia makes more from the export of cheese.

Can one hope that Labor will get off its backside? If you look at NSW the answer is no, with the Government opening coal mines at 1000-miles-an-hour while tackling Sydney's water shortages with a wretched de-sal plant. And federal Labor seems more concerned with 14,000 coal-mining jobs -- a labour force that could easily be absorbed in building sustainable power stations.

As Lowe points out, we've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing industries in recent years -- and that's put down to progress. As climate change bites, its effect on, for example, the Great Barrier Reef will be dramatic. Bang go 60,000 jobs in the Queensland tourist industry.

The Murray-Darling was a disgrace long before climate change kicked in. Now it's official. It's a calamity. Howard tells us this as if it's news. As with power needs, water usage has been spiralling out of control for decades -- and the lack of political response at all levels of government has been criminal.

We need a change in the political climate just as the PM needed a better role model. He should have dumped Bush (everyone else has) and gone for Arnie. What Schwarzenegger is achieving in California -- an economy of comparable scale to Australia's -- is impressive. Power-saving initiatives, alternative energies, tougher emissions laws.

It's all bets off on climate change. Howard to the knacker's yard. Time to change horses.

Editorial by Michael Mullins in Eureka Street, vol. 17, no. 21 (1 Nov 07)

Cardinal Pell's views on climate change are his own

Cardinal George Pell has made a name for himself as a denier of radical climate change.

In replying to criticism from the Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn George Browning last week, he accused 'radical environmentalists' of 'moralising their own agenda and imposing it on people through fear'.

Then at the weekend, he devoted his Sunday Telegraph column to the topic, reaffirming that he is 'certainly sceptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes, because the evidence is insufficient'. He argues there is nothing extraordinary about present circumstances, as 'climate change has always occurred' and scientists' predictions of an 'apocalypse' due to global warming should be taken 'with a grain of salt'.

Given such strong statements from the most prominent leader in the Catholic Church in Australia, some might infer that the Church denies the reality of climate change. That would certainly conflict with the thrust of Church teaching that climate change is a reality that requires a change in our way of life:

• Pope John Paul II said in 1990 that 'when man turns his back on the Creator's plan, he provokes a disorder'.
• The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace says: 'The climate is a good that must be protected and reminds consumers and those engaged in industrial activity to develop a greater sense of responsibility for their behaviour.'
• One of the stronger local church statements comes from the 2005 position paper of the Australian Catholic Bishops: Climate Change: Our Responsibility to Sustain God’s Earth. The focus is not on the existence of climate change, but what to do about it: 'Given the gravity of the problem, detailed and resolute responses need to be both swift and radical.'

In his Sunday Telegraph column, Cardinal Pell does not underscore his argument with theological justification, as he does with his position on other issues such as human cloning. This is proper because his views are his own. So it would be unfortunate if casual readers attributed to them the authority of the Catholic Church. They have only the authority of his personal opinions.

The Columban Justice Peace and Integrity of Creation institute has released guidelines for the federal election, warning voters against intimidation by 'those who play on religion and people's good will in their denial of climate change'. It refers to those with a literalist reading of Scripture who pervert the religious word 'stewardship' to sanction economic exploitation.

Cardinal Pell has not so far incorporated such a theological dimension into his argument. It is only fair to him, and the Catholic Church, that members of the public and other commentators do not assume that he has.

I am dismayed to read in the Canberra Times (1 Nov 07) that the Australian National Botanic Gardens in Canberra, home to Australia's biggest living collection of native plants, is in crisis and will cut jobs, research capacity and garden maintenance in a bid to find funds to pay its water and electricity bills.

The gardens contain about a third of known Australian flowering plants, jointly manage the National Herbarium and Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research with CSIRO and manage one of the largest seed banks of native species.

The federal Department of Environment and Water Resources is reviewing the future role of the gardens, and may downgrade its horticultural research capacity in order to find money. Over the past 20 years, staff levels at the gardens have dropped by 31 per cent, the position of director has been downgraded and plans to expand the gardens have been scrapped.

In their recent annual report, the Gardens say water restrictions "put much of the collection under stress" and resulted in some losses from plant collections. The Gardens met their own water reduction targets of "replacing 50 per cent of net evaporation per year" but fell short by 21 per cent of utility company ActewAGL's target allocation of water to the gardens. There are concerns about the deteriorating condition of some garden beds concerns and that rare plants--including a wollemi pine--are dying.

The Australian Native Plant Society is so concerned about the future scientific and cultural role of the gardens and their "vital role in Australia’s living heritage" and asks its 10,000 members--many of whom are leading scientists--to lobby politicians over the crisis. "It is ironic that in a time of massive budget surpluses, the [gardens], like the environment, [are] subject to a funding drought. Contrast this to Canberra’s museums, which are benefiting from direct government funding. . . . [T]here is a pressing need to recognise the amenity and ecological value of Australian native plants, and encourage their use, but the [gardens], a major entity in a prime position to deliver this outcome, [are] hamstrung through inadequate funding."

Quite so.