MICHAEL MULLINS’ TINY LETTER

Former BBC Australian correspondent Nick Bryant has just published a book titled The Rise and Fall of Australia: How a great nation lost its way. He documents the Hawke-Keating policy reforms that continued under John Howard. The reforms got us through the GFC, but their impetus didn’t last. For a decade or more, populist politics and vacuous policy have been the norm.

We needed a circuit breaker and got Clive Palmer. He is demonstrating an ability to thwart some of the inequities in the Coalition’s Budget and legislative program. But he appears to stand for policy that is confused and inconsistent and lacking in the depth and long-term vision that is sorely needed. Moreover he is perhaps motivated more by self-interest and vengeance than social inclusion.

On the one hand Palmer is effectively performing the ‘keep the bastards honest’ role that was identified by Don Chipp when he founded the Australian Democrats back in 1977. Palmer is succeeding in his attempt to force the Abbott Government to embrace the tricky challenge of producing legislation that will ensure big business passes on to ordinary Australians the savings it will make from the abolition of the price on carbon. But on the other he plays hardball when there are attempts to scrutinise his own business dealings, as we saw in his instantly famous walk out from Thursday evening’s ABC 7.30 interview. 

Palmer is nothing if he’s not a man of surprises. Nobody expected that he would share a platform with Al Gore, advocating action on climate change. We don’t yet know whether this was merely a stunt, or if it will amount to something. If he sets his mind to it, anything is possible, and it might not matter what his motivation is if he is able to make a positive difference. In Twiggy Forrest, we have seen another wealthy and sometimes controversial mining magnate, join forces with world religious leaders including Pope Francis to support a network that aims to end slavery.

It’s unlikely that Palmer will do anything to facilitate the serious policy development that we need, and that is probably the role of others. There’s the recently established Melbourne Economic Forum, which Professors Ross Garnaut and Peter Dawkins are promoting. It aims to bring together leading economists to analyse policy ‘in the public interest’ in a way that is ‘independent of vested interests and partisan political connections’. 

But while the Melbourne Forum will advocate for a basic fairness that was lacking in the May Budget, their input will only go a certain distance in that it will regard the human person as an economic unit. They are experts in rationality but compassion is not part of their remit. To satisfy the broader human and spiritual needs of the population, it is necessary to pay attention to the vision of leaders like Pope Francis, who has a strong regard for both economic policy and common humanity. 

The pope and other religious leaders need to forge partnerships with high profile and entrepreneurial personalities from spheres of influence such as business and entertainment. In joining hands with Al Gore, Clive Palmer showed us that he is capable of forging unlikely alliances that could sidestep certain vested interests in order to make a better world. Clearly he has a mind to cultivate others, and Pope Francis could be on his list.

Earlier this month, Pope Francis visited Rome's Sant'Egidio Community, which is well known for its commitment to the poor. Before an audience that included many homeless people and immigrants, he once again blasted capitalism. 

He regretted that financial capital is often given priority over human capital: 'At the centre of today's global economy aren't men and women, but leaders and money. What isn't productive is thrown away.'

His answer is the concept of solidarity, which is fundamental to Catholic social teaching. It includes investing in — rather than discarding — humans who cannot be regarded as viable units of economic production.

'Some people have tried to take the word 'solidarity' out of our vocabulary,' he said.

But it is not true that all business leaders dismiss the idea of solidarity with those who appear chronically unproductive. Vinnies' CEO Sleepout (pictured), which took place overnight on Thursday, included investment bankers and other capitalist 'true believers' often in Pope Francis' firing line who are willing to express solidarity with those who are homeless.

The business leaders demonstrated that they were prepared to take a physically gruelling first step towards working with these people. Especially if they were able to look them in the eye, there is the possibility the CEOs will include their needs and aspirations in their own corporate thinking processes in the future. 

Hopefully the CEOs have seen for themselves that the profile of the homeless these days is no longer the stereotype of the dishevelled alcoholic man on the park bench. A Vinnies spokesperson cites victims of domestic violence and parents with kids who have just run out of options and can't afford the rent. Prospective employers with the imagination to believe in the future productive capacity of today's down and outs is one who is building a nation and not just his or her own business. 

Vinnies' CEO Sleepout seemed quite a crazy idea when it began five years ago. Coincidentally this week, investment banker and venture capitalist Mark Carnegie went further and proposed a form of compulsory 'national service' that might include older and younger Australians volunteering for organisations such as those assisting the poor and unemployed. 

Carnegie's vision is for a more inclusive and engaged Australia. It is to defeat the 'enemy' of an inequality that is the antithesis of solidarity.

The enemy that we face at the moment is growing inequality, growing divisiveness, growing disengagement, getting people through some universal program to get re-engaged is going to defend us against what's happening in America where you see the society just absolutely sheering because the rich and the poor are just getting further and further and further apart.

As long as a capitalist like Carnegie, and Pope Francis, can be fired up against the common enemy of social exclusion, there is hope for a better life for all of us. 

In 1969 the Victorian premier Sir Henry Bolte famously said of protesting railway workers: 'They can march up and down till they're bloody well footsore, it's nothing to do with me.' Bolte was unmoved by the protesters in much the same way that recently members of the current Coalition Government were unimpressed when students hectored Foreign Minister Julie Bishop at Sydney University and former Coalition identity Sophie Mirabella at Melbourne.

There is a place for strident but non-violent protest, but the cause is lost if the intention or effect is to intimidate or coerce. If protesters do manage to persuade authorities to agree to their demands, the change will be temporary or piecemeal unless they have also moved hearts and minds.

The best way of doing this is through meaningful symbolic gesture. We will long remember Pope Francis bowing his head in prayer during his May visit to the Middle East, at Israel's graffiti-covered concrete separation wall, with a Palestinian girl holding a flag by his side. This was an unscheduled moment that allowed him to cut through with his message that the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians is 'increasingly unacceptable'. 

It needed to be matched by a further act of symbolism on the other side of the security wall, hence Francis' subsequent unscheduled stop, at a cemetery for victims of terrorism at Mount Herzl. This allowed him to go some way towards establishing trust with Israelis skeptical of 'platitudes about Middle East peace that refuse to condemn Hamas terrorism'.

Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) took its cue from Francis and his mastery of the art of symbolism, when it embarked upon a campaign of National Lament for Australia's harsh and punitive policies against asylum seekers (CRA designated 1–8 June the campaign's Week of Prayer and Prophetic Presence). 

Francis had said last year: 'We are a society which has forgotten how to weep.' Heartfelt weeping, hesuggested, is 'the cry of the penitent, the cry of the brother and the sister who are looking upon so much human misery'.

The most potent moments in current affairs television occur when the person being interviewed is shown to cry, yet we're taught to believe that 'breaking down' shows we're not in command of the argument. In fact it reveals the humanity of the person, and often establishes an instant bond with those who witness their tears.

CRA stresses the National Lament is not a protest, but 'a symbolic action showing that we lament the treatment of people seeking asylum in Australia and are standing in solidarity with these people, our sisters and brothers'. The result could surprise.

We will never know what impact crying railway workers might have had on Bolte, But surely Bishop could not have been unmoved if the jostling students had instead wept, in a genuine manner, over the lost educational opportunity occasioned by the Federal Budget.

It seems the delays could have been caused by decisions to experiment and go against trend, to manufacture the products in the USA, rather than countries such as China, where more expedient production conditions prevail. 

We variously marvel at the cost-effective manufacturing processes in these countries and express alarm at the knock on effect on manufacturing here. The federal government's lack of will to subsidise local manufacturers is built on a conviction that workers here enjoy conditions that are unsustainable and our work conditions must be downgraded to ensure local industry is more competitive with overseas counterparts. 

We enjoy record low prices on products such as electronics and clothing and marvel at what we consider the 'miracle' of modern manufacturing in China, as if it is part of God's bounty. That this is far from the case is revealed in Baptist World Aid's recently released Behind the Barcode report. It is not a gift of God but our taking advantage of the disempowerment of fellow humans in less fortunate parts of the world.

The Baptist report focuses on widespread ignorance of the conditions of the people who produce electronic consumer goods. In other words, what we don't know won't hurt our conscience. It's our lack of knowledge of the exploitation of the workers and, more significantly, the lack of interest on the part of Australian and multinational companies in knowing about the human circumstances of the manufacture of these products.

The headline findings of the report include that fact that 97% of electronics companies could not demonstrate they were paying workers enough to meet their basic needs. Only 18% of companies had even partial knowledge of where their raw materials were sourced. Also 34% of companies had a code of conduct which included workers' rights to collective bargaining, but only one company could demonstrate that there was a collective bargaining agreement in place.

Nokia, which still managed only a 'B+' grading in the study, was the only company among 39 leading technology brands able to prove it was paying its manufacturing workers a living wage above the official minimum. The study defined a living wage as enough money for food, water, shelter, clothing and a bit extra for discretionary spending or emergencies.

Other companies such as Australian retailers Kogan and Dick Smith did badly, and were not prepared to cooperate with the study by providing information about the systems of monitoring labour conditions they did have. Dick Smith instead issued a statement complaining that the study 'does not fairly represent Dick Smith's current practices' and insisting the company 'has policies in place to ensure that our supply chain meets our strong ethical and environmental standards'.

The lesson for Australian consumers wanting to be as confident as possible that they are not supporting child slave labour is that they should buy products from companies such as Nokia, who can demonstrate better than their rivals that caring about workers' conditions. This is, if you like, a feature of their products, and should take this into account when purchasing.

For its part, the Australian Government needs to less cavalier and reticent to subsidise local manufacturers, who are obliged to be transparent about their work practices and bear the costs of this. For a relatively modest outlay, it could have saved the Electrolux factory in Orange NSW, and we would have confidence that our vacuum cleaners are not being produced by slaves and sold to us at bargain prices.

When Tony Abbott reintroduced knights and dames back in March, commentators said it was a sign he was 'stuck in the 1950s'. Another characteristic of 1950s Australian society was its sectarianism. The nation was bitterly divided along religious lines, with 'mixed' marriages frowned upon and Protestants often denied employment in Catholic dominated workplaces, and vice-versa.

There are echoes of 1950s sectarianism in last Tuesday's Federal Budget announcement that schools will lose the option of appointing non-religious welfare workers under the national school chaplaincy program, which has had its funding increased by $245 million when there were cuts to most other areas of education.

What is currently known as the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program was introduced in 2007 as a Howard Government initiative that provided for religious formation in a way that could have inflamed sectarian tensions had its original formulation remained intact. 

Chaplaincy services were specifically religious and mostly Christian, though they were not permitted to engage in direct proselytisation. But critics were asking questions such as how a successful and charismatic Protestant chaplain could not draw Catholic students towards the faith or his or her own denomination.

Significantly Labor education minister Peter Garrett cleared the air in 2011 when he revamped the program to give schools the option of employing a 'secular student wellbeing officer' in place of a religious worker, and to require qualifications such as a youth work certificate. 

This was seen to reflect the growing proportion of the population identifying as non-religious, and the increased regard for professional standards in the wider community. 96.5 per cent of the program's chaplains were Christian, even though only 64 per cent of Australians identified as Christian. By contrast, 0.01 of the chaplains were secular, whereas 19 per cent said they were not religious.

Australian Primary Principals Association president Norm Hart described the delicately balanced role of the chaplains in the program's current incarnation:

School chaplains work with primary schools students, not as religious workers but really as support officers, helping children with questions of, well, moral dilemmas that they might face in the playground and you know, questions about right and wrong that kids have and also where they're emotionally challenged or they have feelings of being hurt, a chaplain might well suggest ways that a child could help themselves in that situation.

The balance is bound to shift from the beginning of next year, when the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program becomes the National School Chaplaincy Programme. Oddly the new program'sfact sheet does emphasise the students' emotional wellbeing ahead of their religious development, but the removal of 'student welfare' from the title and non-religious welfare officers from its workforce is significant. 

The Atheist Foundation wonders why education minister Christopher Pyne insists that student welfare is the responsibility of the state education departments while the Commonwealth considers the funding of 'religious' chaplains a priority. It's unlikely that the Government wants us to return to the sectarianism of the 1950s, but it does need to explain why it is protecting the religious — and not welfare — role of its chaplains from the cuts of the harshest Federal Budget in nearly two decades.

The jury is out on whether Chris Lilley's new ABC1 comedy Jonah from Tonga gives a free kick to racism and other forms of discriminatory behaviour. 

TV critic Giles Hardie says it is 'fantastic that people are accusing this show of being racist, because that is exactly the way to start the relevant and important conversation'. But Polynesian writer Morgan Godfery argues that Lilley empowers racism. '[He] reinscribe[s] the very stereotypes [he's] acting out ...   Whenever people dress in racial drag, they channel that history of racism.'

Critic David Knox borrows a theological concept when he suggests Jonah and Lilley's previous work should be judged on the basis of redemption. 'Showing an abusive character (particularly to an impressionable young audience) must service a point, which should also include the lesson-learning that the abuse is hardly acceptable to a reasonable-thinking person.'

Knox believes redemption in Lilley's characters does take place, but it's a case of too little too late. He cites the character Ja'mie becoming 'momentarily same-sex attracted after her tirade of "lesbian" insults'. But, Knox says, 'the risk is that before you reach that point the wider audience is potentially so offended that it does not stick around for that lesson'.

However the effort to avoid offence can also be seen as an attempt to deny reality in a way that creates a set of politically correct stereotypes that may themselves be discriminatory. 

Irish writer Colm Tóibín speaks in his recent lecture 'The censor in each of us' of the perceived need to deny the existence of behaviour that offends social aspiration. We choose 'images that are comforting and comfortable, images that cover the national or social or religious wound, or attempt to heal it'. Hence our politically correct depictions of racial harmony. Until the 1960s, we were comforted by images of 'white Australia'. 

Tóibín describes hostile demonstrations of political correctness outside Dublin's Abbey Theatre early last century. Inside were performances of plays that depicted Irish peasant women as 'earthy and sexually alive'. The protesters saw them as frustrating attempts to make Irish women 'seem more pure, more fully Victorian than their English counterparts'.

The prejudices in Lilley's Jonah are depictions of the wounds of Australian society, not the attempt of a far-right ideologue to promote a stratified nation based on race. Before the redemption can take place, we need to own our woundedness and moral imperfection. That is the theology of Chris Lillley.

In its own way, the Australian Catholic bishops' Feast of St Joseph the Worker social inclusion pastoral letter is as remarkable as the report of the Federal Government's pre-Budget National Commission of Audit that was released on the same day. 

It brings to Australian shores Pope Francis' radical economic thinking centred on the dignity of the human person. This is in stark contrast to the Audit Commission's putting efficiency and capital ahead of human need.

The Commission says it's the 'sustainability of the nation's long-term finances' that should guide government spending. The Bishops, on the other hand, believe it should be 'animated by a concern for dignity of workers and their families'. 

It's hard to imagine a more stark contrast in thinking about priorities for this month's Federal Budget. 

The Commission does mention the need to 'protect the truly disadvantaged', though there is no thought for those who are relatively disadvantaged. In practice it leaves intact superannuation concessions and other tax breaks for high income earners, while targeting payments for those who rely on welfare benefits. 

The argument of the Commission is that spending cuts that produce a balanced Budget will make us all better off because we will have a stronger economy and more jobs. On the other hand, the bishops quote Francis' skeptical assessment of such 'trickle-down' economic theories in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:

This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralised workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.

Those excluded include the young unemployed. The Commission envisages that they would be required to move away from family and friends to areas of high employment, or they will lose access to unemployment benefits. 

Forcing young people to leave home for the convenience of 'those wielding economic power' is not only an offence against dignity but a recipe for alienation and the drug addiction and other social ills that follow. Invariably business does not consider moving jobs to areas of high unemployment because economic efficiency is regarded as more important than preventing rootlessness.

It's possible that few of the Commission's recommendations will make it into the Federal Budget, but that it will instead provide an ideological blueprint for government policy in coming years. Perhaps we are just being softened and we will be grateful to the Government for imposing a $6 co-payment for visits to the GP rather than the Commission's recommended $15.

But to the extent that the Government owns and acts upon the recommendations of the audit report, it will be at odds with Pope Francis and all who value social inclusion.

In South Sudan, hundreds of innocent civilians were slaughtered earlier this month in a massacre based on ethnicity. Thousands are believed to have lost their lives since the December outbreak of a political dispute between President Salva Kiir and his former deputy president, Riek Machar. The recent victims had failed to find sanctuary where they were hiding, in hospitals and places of worship in the oil hub of Bentiu.

The UN's top humanitarian official in the country told the BBC that the scenes in Bentiu were 'perhaps [the] most shocking set of circumstances' he had ever faced. The 'piles of [bodies of] people who had been slaughtered' all appeared to be civilians.

Many of the rebels say they took up arms because of the murder of their relatives in the capital Juba at the beginning of this conflict. But significantly it appears it was hate speech broadcast on the local FM radio station that spurred them into action.

The UN deplored the broadcasts that insisted 'certain ethnic groups should not stay in Bentiu and even call[ed] on men from one community to commit vengeful sexual violence against women from another community'.

Its spokesperson called them 'especially regrettable and unfortunate, given what happened in Rwanda 20 years ago, when radio stations were used to broadcast the hate messages' that fanned the flames of tension, ultimately sparking mass ethnic killings in that country.

Radio is a particularly powerful means of mobilising a population for good or ill during various emergencies, including natural disasters and civil conflict. At such times, television tends to foster passivity, and the consumption of what is sometimes referred to as 'disaster porn'. But radio broadcasts are much more likely to fuel the imagination, transform hearts and minds, and encourage people to act.

In Australia, radio has been especially useful during bushfire and cyclone emergencies, but a curse when shock jocks have manipulated public opinion against the common good. This includes subverting action on climate change, but also fostering ethnic hatred. For Australians, news of the the role of radio hate speech in the South Sudan ethnic violence might in some way echo Alan Jones' famed message of encouragement to white Australians to take part in a 'show of force' against non-white Australians at Cronulla in 2005.

In South Sudan, the UN is doing its best to ensure the broadcast of hate messages is disallowed, with its spokesperson declaring 'we have called on relevant national state and local authorities to take all measures possible to prevent the airing of such messages'.

But in Australia, Attorney General George Brandis appears to be doing the opposite. He's in the process of establishing legal protection for those wishing to broadcast hate speech. Brandis recently asserted that 'people do have a right to be bigots', in his push to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, in the interest of allowing unfettered free speech.

Australia has its fair share of ethnic and religious animosity, but it remains largely under the surface. The recent South Sudan example shows the violence that can be caused by individuals with legal sanction to broadcast messages that wish ill on particular groups in the community. The UN says this is a freedom South Sudanese do not need. Do Australians really want it?

Last week's Game of Thronesseries four premiere revealed Melbourne as the pirate capital of the world. An analysis published on the website TorrentFreak shows Melbourne, followed by Athens and Sydney, as the top city in the world for downloading the show without paying.

It's debatable whether it is technically illegal to download media content from sites such as Pirate Bay, rather than purchasing, in this case, a $35 per month minimum Foxtel subscription. Choice magazinesays it's a grey area, but gives qualified sanction to consumers who circumvent the strategies of online media companies and retailers that play hard ball to squeeze consumers in small markets such as Australia, where it's easy to create monopolies. 

With this series of Game of Thrones, the Murdoch half-owned Foxtel negotiated exclusive, or monopoly, rights, so that it could charge what it wanted. But Foxtel knows that it doesn't really have a monopoly because it is competing against the likes of Pirate Bay. 

The downloaders make a 'people power' claim to moral legitimacy because they think Foxtel's business model undermines the access they believe they are entitled to. Meanwhile Foxtel corporate affairs director Bruce Meagher says 'that's like justifying stealing a Ferrari on the basis that the waiting list is too long or the price is too high (maybe it's because you don't want all of the features)'. 

Perhaps they're both correct. 

It appears Meagher fails to appreciate that the human act of telling and listening to stories is essentially organic, and that the ability and right to buy and sell stories cannot be assumed. Since the beginning of human civilisation, stories have defined our identity and brought us together as social animals. Stories are not a cultural form of terra nullius, and human nature will not allow them to be wholly appropriated by business interests.

What the downloaders don't understand is the difference between a story and its telling. Story tellers don't own the stories but they should be paid for telling them. 

The commodification of stories is in itself a product of human industry and the dignity of work. It's fair to expect us to pay a reasonable price to access particular 'tellings' of stories. Media production creates work for actors, writers and producers, and expands our horizons with a greater range of stories. It is a matter of regret that globalisation has killed many languages and folk traditions, but a fact of life that mass media products such as Game of Thrones have displaced ancient forms of story telling in the lives of small groups and tribes.

Regulation needs to ensure that everybody has access to the telling of stories that are considered culturally significant — including pop culture — at a readily affordable cost. Given the mass global interest it has generated, this would have to include Game of Thrones. 

Until now, the Federal Government has used its anti-siphoning legislation to ensure that certain sports events remain accessible to all by stipulating that they must be shown on free to air rather than pay TV. Unfortunately these rules could be scrapped by the Abbott Government's proposed media regulation changes. Anti-siphoning should instead be expanded to include other culturally significant genres such asGame of Thrones. If it's not, the people power of the downloaders will prevail.

Federal Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson has called on the Government to increase the GST, by lifting the rate above ten per cent and broadening its scope to include some essential services such as health care. He also wants to see a cut in personal income tax.

The thinking, which is backed by Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens, is that it will provide us with an incentive to work harder. We need to do this because our standard of living is threatened by weak productivity growth, as well as falling commodity prices and an ageing population.

Traditionally governments facing fiscal challenge have responded by hitting those who can afford it most. Past federal treasurers have increased income taxes and relied upon 'bracket creep', which forces workers to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes as their wages increase and they can cope with it.

Such 'progressive' means of taxation are equitable, but they discourage individuals from boosting national productivity by working harder. 

This is because bracket creep requires them to pay a disproportionate amount of their extra income to the government in taxes. The reasoning is that cutting income taxes and relying instead on an increased GST will make us do more work. It will serve the worthy goal of increased productivity and benefit the nation as a whole.

The problem is that it imposes an unfair burden on the jobless and those on low incomes. An increase in the price of goods and services will force them to put less food on the table and diminish their lifestyle. It won't make any difference to those in work, especially those on higher incomes, because the increased GST is balanced by lower income taxes.

The problem with the argument of Parkinson and others is that they do not mention the range of generous tax concessions enjoyed by those on high incomes. Sometimes referred to as tax avoidance strategies, they include superannuation concessions, negative gearing and trusts. There is also a lack of will to countenance an inheritance tax, which has been on the list of political unmentionables along with an increase in the GST. 

Now that the GST is apparently on the table, is it surely time to discuss taxation issues that wealthy Australians find unpalatable. Cassandra Goldie of the Australian Council of Social Services has signalledthat welfare groups are willing to countenance an increase in the GST if there is also discussion of reining in tax concessions enjoyed by high income earners:

'We need to take a long hard look at the unfair superannuation tax arrangements which cost as much as the age pension, at the inconsistent way different kinds of investments are taxed — including negative gearing arrangements — and at the ability of people with high incomes to avoid tax using private trust and companies.'

The bottom line was articulated by the Prime Minister himself in the Coalition's election policy platform Our Plan — Real Solutions for all Australians. It refers to 'a decent and respectful society that gives a 'fair go' to all and encourages people to thrive and get ahead'. This goal must be at the fore in all discussion of tax reform.