Christian Nation? Not so much

At the publication of the last census I made a prediction; that by 2021, the number of Australians who say they have no religion would be the plurality – the largest single group.

As it turns out, I was wrong; we are ahead of schedule.

(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, 2007, 2012, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c)

Continue reading


Seven Thoughts on the Centrelink Debt Debacle

As the steaming heap of institutional ineptitude that is the Centrelink Debt Debacle continues to upend itself across Australia for yet another week, with no end in sight, a few things have occurred to me:

  1. I am so incredibly happy I was never able to qualify for, and thus have never received, any form of benefit from Centrelink;
  2. Some of the people that have received debt collection notices are now qualified and practicing lawyers – I suspect there are pretty good odds that Centrelink will find itself in court over this;
  3. Speaking of making enemies, going after the elderly was a Very Bad Idea – they have a lot of time on their hands, the heartstrings of their voting children and grandchildren, and are already inclined to grumpiness;
  4. As the experience of using MyGov continues to be unfavourably compared to getting a napalm enema or your fingernails pulled, this reinforces my decision that there is no way on God’s green earth, or any other planet, that will I ever willingly touch that website;
  5. I can’t decide if the Government spokesmen defending this are drunk, incompetent, being beamed in from another reality, lying, or a combination of the above;
  6. It’s too early to say what effect this will have on this Government’s prospects and chances at the polls, but any effect it does have will not be positive; and
  7. The 2016 Census, the ATO crash, and now this? I’m honestly wondering; when it comes to computers, can you people get anything right?

Logically Indefensible; why freedom of religion requires acceptance of same-sex marriage

In 2008 a CNN iReport entitled Why Defence of Marriage is Indefensible was written. In 15 points of dispassionate, clinical logic, the piece dissected opposition to marriage equality, and found it to be completely indefensible. Sadly the original is no longer available, and I neglected to make an archival copy before it vanished.

This post is based on that iReport, and has been in the drafts folder for many months now; in it, I apply that argument to the Australian context, although I take 19 points. The post has been updated to reflect the current situation.

First, a note; civil unions as a valid alternative to marriage have been rejected as a failed experiment (Australian Marriage Equality 2009) – as the Americans would say, “separate is not equal,” (Sorenson 2012) not is it acceptable; this stance is supported by clinical evidence (Wilkinson and Kitzinger 2005).

And now, let us begin.

Continue reading

The Senate Voting Reforms in 600 words

So I’ve been reading Antony Green’s blog on the proposed Senate voting reforms, and from that, here’s a nice little rundown of the proposal as it stands right now.

I am assuming you know how the single transferable vote system used in the Senate works. If not, click here and brush up.

Continue reading

The ALP, the Plebiscite, and Marriage Equality

A couple of years ago I wrote a piece about Kevin Rudd’s support of marriage equality. It was, frankly, over-dramatic and painfully self-righteous and looking back on it I cringe a little. I’m leaving it up, instead of hiding the old shame, because although my presentation was awful, the argument itself I fully stand by.

Continue reading

Three Circles and People on Boats

So the High Court did a thing with people seeking asylum today. In case you were asleep or stoned.

And people are quite outraged.

I’m not.

Before we go into why, we need to check this pretty picture out. It’s my rendering of the “spheres of control” diagram, done in five minutes in MS Paint. Behold my elite graphics skills:


Stop laughing. Let’s look at them.

First; the sphere of control. This is what you directly control; within this sphere, your will shall be done. At its very core is you; your body, your mind, and so on. Granted, some of us are at the mercy of things like brain chemistry gone awry or an immune system in revolt, but for the vast majority our selves are under our direct control. Further out but still here are the people who answer to you at work, things you have direct authority over, etc. The point is that here, you control the outcomes.

Next is the sphere of influence. You can persuade, lead by example, support others, and so on, to influence outcomes you don’t directly control. You can help push things in a particular direction, but the result isn’t certain and you won’t always get what you want. Other people fall into here, unless they answer to you in some capacity.

Third comes the sphere of interest. These are things you are aware of, or interested in. They may impact you, but, most important, you actually have bugger all say in them (or what say you do have is negligible). Some of these things can be crucial; such as the economy. Others are of curiosity only, like the mapping of Pluto (unless that’s your job – in which case why are you reading this? Go do science!).

Outside of this is irrelevancy.

Now the problem is that too many people allow the sphere of interest to become a sphere of concern, or a sphere of worry, and that leads to stress (which, I hardly need tell you, is a great way to screw up your mental and physical health).

Which leads me to the asylum seeker ruling from the High Court.

It lies in my sphere of interest; I found it interesting. But I am not concerned or worried by it. Nor am I outraged. First, the High Court was not asked to rule on whether this was moral or just, but if it was constitutional and legal; they found that it is. So be it. Second, and more importantly, I can do nothing at all to change that outcome, nor can I do anything to prevent those people from being sent to a remote island in the South Pacific. I could act in my sphere of influence to talk to those around me, but everyone I know is outraged already; preaching to the choir when it’s already singing is a pointless exercise. It is outside my sphere of influence in any meaningful sense of the term, and as I do not set immigration policy in Australia, it is far outside my sphere of control.

That all changes on Election Day; democracy affords us the chance to tell our leaders that this was unacceptable. If you truly feel so strongly about this issue, if you think Something Must Be Done, then take note of this. Look at the various political party’s websites; examine their policies in the lead-up to that day.

Then cast your vote accordingly; on that day, the issue moves into all our spheres of influence.

For what it’s worth, no, I don’t think this will be a big enough issue to actually change things. After 2013, ALP is terrified of being seen as soft on this issue, and the Coalition has more intention of legalising same-sex marriage than of softening their stance. And the reason they do this is because it still wins them votes. It will take a major upset to break either party out of their stance on this.

And when the chips are down, the plight of asylum seekers is not uppermost in the minds of voters; it’s the economy, stupid.

Alternative Dates for Oz Day

The timing of Australia Day – January 26, the anniversary of when Governor Arthur Phillip arrived in Sydney Cove and the British Empire expanded its reach across the continent – is controversial. “Expanded its reach” is a polite way to say “conquered the hell out of the place” – and that’s exactly what the day marks. It was the day the continents indigenous inhabitants encountered an Outside Context Problem;

The usual example given to illustrate an Outside Context Problem was imagining you were a tribe on a largish, fertile island; you’d tamed the land, invented the wheel or writing or whatever, the neighbours were cooperative or enslaved but at any rate peaceful and you were busy raising temples to yourself with all the excess productive capacity you had, you were in a position of near-absolute power and control which your hallowed ancestors could hardly have dreamed of and the whole situation was just running along nicely like a canoe on wet grass… when suddenly this bristling lump of iron appears sailless and trailing steam in the bay and these guys carrying long funny-looking sticks come ashore and announce you’ve just been discovered, you’re all subjects of the Emperor now, he’s keen on presents called tax and these bright-eyed holy men would like a word with your priests.

To be honest, what the British did here was no worse than what had been done across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, for thousands of years; if you don’t believe me, go look up the Mongol Conquest of Baghdad.

That’s not to say it was OK; though I loathe historical presentism, by the standards of today what was done was reprehensible, and people are still hurting from it. But even by the standards of the time, the British weren’t very nice – and they knew it;

Aborigines were initially treated with compassion, but soon after Governor Phillip’s departure the massacres began. First at Risdon Cove in Van Diemen’s Land, where in 1804 a large party of Aborigines hunting game was murdered by grapeshot fired on the orders of Dr Jacob Montgarret, Launceston’s magistrate. He recovered many of the bodies, melted them down and crammed the bones into casks which he sent, for anthropological amusement, to his colleagues in Sydney. Other massacres followed, and in Tasmania – let’s make no melted-down bones about it – the British committed genocide. Although the term would not be coined for another century, the British knew exactly what they had done: they had, admitted a parliamentary committee in 1839, left ‘an indelible stain’.

— Robertson, Geoffrey (2011-07-01). The Statute of Liberty (Kindle Locations 844-850). Random House Australia. Kindle Edition.

My personal view is that January 26 isn’t an anniversary to be celebrated as the national day of the country – it can be a day to consider the journey of the nation since that fateful day in 1788, both the good and the bad, but I can think of better dates for our national day. Dates that don’t rub it in the faces of the indigenous inhabitants of the country, and actually mark something significant – milestones on our march to independence as a nation.

First, 9 October, the date of the passage of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act – the Statute being an act of the British Parliament that made us, and the other dominions, de jure independent nations. The British Parliament passed it on 11 December 1931, but seeing as it took us 11 years to pass the enabling legislation here, 11 December would be a poor choice.

Second, 4 December, the date of the Australian passage of the Australia Act, which severed the last constitutional links with the United Kingdom.

Third, 3 March, the date that Act came into effect.

All three are good candidates for our de facto independence as a nation, and all three come without a very bitter pill for our indigenous peoples to swallow.

I’ve listed them in order of my personal preference. My reason for ranking 9 October as first is that it marks the day the Australian Government finally gathered the intestinal fortitude to do what the British had been wanting us to do for over a decade, and become legislatively independent. I rank 4 December second as it is the day we crossed the Rubicon in severing ourselves from the UK. 3 march comes a distant third, only because you’ll have to fight the gays for that day every time it coincides with the first Saturday in March.

Picking any one of those days will be fine, frankly. And it beats waiting for the Republic.

Addendum, 24 January 2018: Eddie McGuire has suggested on Triple M that May 27, the anniversary of the 1967 Referendum , would do nicely, being the day when “white Australia and black Australia finally became ‘Australia'” ( – although the effect of the referendum isn’t as great as is often claimed, the symbolism is significant, and I see nothing wrong with that at all.