For a good month, the adults were out and about across the country. “Tell me what you need”, many of them said—and stopped to listen. “This is what I think we can do”, others said— and gave indications of what they could offer to people who were listening. Why,some of them even said how much it would cost to do what they were offering, and where the money would come from to pay for that.
And then the people came, and considered, and voted, and told the adults what they wanted. And the adults all nodded, and said, “yes, indeed,the people have spoken: we respect that, and we will do what we said”.
Then the adults caught planes and drove cars and gathered in their sandpits in the special place that had been made for them to come together and play. Some of the adults said they needed a bigger sandpit, because there were more of them. Other adults said they didn’t want little Eddie and Mackie to play with them any more in their “special” sandpit. Amd other adults started a very public squabble about who would have the best toys and the most play space in their sandpits. Why, one of them even decided she didn’t like the sandpit where she said she would play; so she decided to join the adults in another sandpit, just across the way.
But by then, it was apparent to all the people who had listened, and talked, and voted, that the adults had become children, once again. Which was, after all, what they had been before they had spent that month as adults, amongst the people.
*****
Or, in plain language:
MPs are elected to represent the people of their electorate, first and foremost. National policy needs to be formulated with due awareness of the impact across the board: each MP ought to be advocating for the needs and concerns that they are hearing from their electors.
Instead, party members focus on climbing the factional ladder (in both “majors”) and gaining the prestige, power, and salary of the next few rungs “up”. Leadership competitions and factional deals reveal that once they return to Canberra, they have a completely skewed and unpredictable upside-down set of priorities.
To me, that is more reason next time around NOT to vote for “the major parties”—especially since they are funded by gambling companies, fossil-fuel industry, multi- million dollar magnates, and, in the case of the National Party, the tobacco industry.
*****
For my posts on the election from my perspective in Lyne:
This coming Sunday, the Narrative Lectionary presents us with another passage from Acts as the primary reading: the count of the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1–18). There had already been a significant meeting held earlier in Jerusalem, which is reported in Acts 11; on that occasion, Peter convinces “the apostles and the believers who were in Judea” about what had occurred when “the Gentiles had accepted the word of God” (11:1).
Although the meeting had begun with a difference of opinion, by the end those gathered were praising God, saying that “God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life” (11:18).
On a later occasion in Jerusalem, the presenting issue as Luke reports it is the requirement that converts had to be “circumcised according to the custom of Moses” in order to be saved (15:1). In one of his early letters, Paul offers a report of this meeting (Gal 2:1–10) which differs significantly from Luke’s account in overall tenor and in specific details. Whilst Paul presents himself as exhibiting great persuasive power in what he portrays as a strongly polemical debate, Luke emphasises the irenic nature of the meeting and focuses more on the contributions made by the Jerusalem leaders, Peter and James.
Raising the issue of circumcision leads to “not a little dispute and discussion” between Barnabas and Paul, in company with others of their group, and some Judean believers (15:2). In their opening report to the meeting, Paul and Barnabas summarise their activities as being “what God did with them” (15:4; cf. 14:27). This reflects the Lukan understanding of how the divine will guides the events reported in Acts; see
Some Pharisaic believers present at the council provide a different perspective on the divine will. The sympathetic attitude of Pharisees towards the messianists is critical on two occasions in forensic settings (5:34-39; 23:9), so Luke sees no conflict in the idea that some Pharisees had joined the messianic community in Jerusalem.
Since the assertion of the Pharisaic believers, that “it is necessary to circumcise them” (15:5), is grounded in scripture (Gen 17:1–14,21–27), it appears plausible that this necessity is the divine will. However, Luke’s report of the debate in this council shows that this is not the case. Three speeches are reported, each of which draws on earlier events to rebut the claim advanced by these Pharisaic members.
Peter’s speech (15:7–11) interprets what Paul and Barnabas have done in the light of Peter’s experience in Caesarea. He uses the established Lukan pattern of interpreting what has occurred by reference to God’s actions, when he explains that “God chose through my mouth for the Gentiles to hear the word of the good news and to believe” (15:7). Peter offers a summary of the events already reported in detail at 10:1–48. In this context, such language about God serves to reinforce the validity of the activities of Paul and Barnabas, and to rebut the claims advanced by the Pharisaic members.
This sense is strengthened by the repetition of familiar language about God in the remainder of the speech: “God who knows all hearts” (15:8, cf. 1:24) “gave the holy spirit” (15:8, cf. 10:44-46; 11:17) in a way which exactly parallels “them” with “us” (15:8, cf. 10:47; 11:15,17) and thus “did not distinguish between us and them” (15:9, cf. 11:12). To question this understanding of events would be to tempt God (15:10) and thus to encounter the fate imposed on Ananias and Sapphira (5:9).
Peter concludes by urging acceptance of what Paul and Barnabas have done, since those Jews who believe have received salvation “in the same way as them” (Gentile believers)—that is, “through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (15:11).
In this way, he argues that the “God who is not partial” (10:34–35) has clearly been at work both in events in Caesarea, which Peter experienced, and in the activity of Paul and Barnabas throughout Asia Minor. The assemblies they established are inclusive; Gentiles belong in them just as much as Jews.
The second speech is reported only as a condensed summary of what Barnabas and Paul reply (15:12). This restates their earlier report of “what God did with them” (15:4) and applies that understanding to the signs and wonders which were performed through them among the Gentiles throughout Asia Minor (15:12). Their speech strengthens the argument for inclusive assemblies, for just as God enabled signs amongst Jews (5:12), so too are signs given amongst Gentiles (15:12).
James’ speech (15:13–21) comes next, and proves to be decisive. This demonstrates the prominence of James, the brother of Jesus, in the Jewish community of believers in Jerusalem. He begins by supporting Peter’s explanation through the use, yet again, of language about God.
For a start, the claim of James that “God visited” (15:14; NRSV “God looked favourably”) evokes the blessing of Zecharaiah (“blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has looked favorably on his people and redeemed them”; Luke 1:68).
James makes the suggestion that by incorporating “a people (laos) from the Gentiles” (15:14), God has brought about “redemption for his people” (Luke 1:68). Careful readers of Luke’s work would know that, in scripture, the term laos has often referred to Israel (Exod 6:7; Deut 4:20,34; 14:2; 26:18–19; 32:9), but the incorporation of the Gentiles into this people now reflects the promise of Zech 2:14–15: “Many nations shall join themselves to the Lord on that day, and shall be my people”.
James then provides further scriptural validation of the inclusion of Gentiles within the messianist assemblies (15:15–18). He cites the agreement of a compilation of scriptural texts (Jer 12:15; Amos 9:11–12; Isa 45:21) which depicts the way that “all the nations … will seek out the Lord”. He affirms that this process is one which “the Lord … has been making known from long ago” (15:18, cf. 15:8). Like the prophetic quotation by Peter at 2:16–21, this prophetic citation is strategically placed to interpret the ensuing narrative about the mission that Paul and others are undertaking.
The selection proposed by the Narrative Lectionary concludes with the speech of James (15:13–18), but Luke’s account continues with some important elements. First, James indicates, “I have reached the decision” that will be crucial in bringing the council to agreement (15:19). He argues that “those among the Gentiles who turn to God” (15:19; cf. 14:15) should not be troubled, and he proposes a compromise position (15:20) with a limited number of prescriptions, each of which has a clear scriptural basis. That was acceptable to the Jews for whom scripture was important; that ought also to have been acceptable to Gentiles who recognised the high moral standards of the new movement.
The prescriptions include: No idol food: Exod 34:11–17; Lev 17:8–9. No sexual immorality: Lev 18:6–29. No strangled animals: Exod 22:31; Lev 17:10–16, equating “what is torn”, 17:15, with “something strangled”. No blood: Gen 9:4; Deut 12:15–16,23–25; cf. Lev 17:11,15.
Luke’s portrayal of James indicates his prominent role amongst the leaders of the assembly, since what James decides (15:19–20) is adopted unchanged by the council (15:28–29). This Lukan view of the authority of James is reinforced later in his account; when Paul returns to Jerusalem, he will report directly to James (21:17–19). Indeed, the Jerusalem community accepts the four requirements without dissent (21:25).
Thus, Luke’s report of these council debates reaffirms the understanding already developed in the narrative of 13:4-14:27, namely, that Paul and Barnabas engage in activities amongst the Gentiles in accord with the divine will. The logical consequence of this perspective is thus worked out in the council’s letter to the assemblies (15:22-29), which is to be distributed amongst the “believers who are from the Gentiles” in assemblies in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia by four chosen delegates: Judas, Silas, Paul and Barnabas (15:22–23).
The letter asserts that it has been worked out by the council and the holy spirit (15:28), thus placing this decision within the stream of events which have been guided and shaped by God. The inclusion of Gentiles within the Jewish messianic assemblies is validated directly by God. The letter is well received in Antioch, where the assembly rejoices (15:31; see 13:48) and receives it as an exhortation (15:31; see 13:15). Paul and Barnabas continue on their way, “teaching and proclaiming the good news” (15:35). All is well that ends well (at least, to this point).
Some of this material is from my commentary on “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. J.D.G. Dunn and John Rogerson; Eerdmans, 2003)
National results as of late afternoon, Thursday 8 May, as displayed on the ABC website Australia Votes
People standing as Independent candidates have done very well in the recent federal election. While Labor attracted 34.7% of the national vote and the Coalition dropped to 32.3% of the vote, Independents collectively secured 13.1% of the national vote—a rise of 2.8% compared with 2022. On the left flank, the Greens had a small drop of 0.5% in their votes, to 11.7%, while on the right flank, One Nation rose by 1.3% to 6.3%.
While Labor has more than twice the number of seats in the lower house than the Coalition, and neither Greens nor One Nation now have any seats (nor the Trumpet of Patriots and the Libertarian parties, for that matter), Independents look set to hold at least 10 seats in the House of Representatives.
A number of Independent candidates have clearly been returned to their seat in the current election. Allegra Spender returns to Wentworth, former seat of John Hewson and Malcolm Turnbull, with an increase in primary votes of 7.7% from the 2022 result. Kate Chaney has also returned in Curtin, WA, where Julie Bishop had long been member; she has a 3.2% swing to her on primary votes. Both of these candidates come from long-established Liberal families; they have well exemplified the disenchantment, over a number of years, with the veer to the right that Abbott, Morrison, and Dutton engineered in the Liberal Party.
Other seats once considered safe Liberal seats are now in Independent hands. Dr Sophie Scamps returns to be the representative for Mackellar, NSW, where Bronwyn Bishop once held sway, with an estimated gain of 2.0% after the distribution of preferences. To her south, in Warringah, the old stamping ground of Tony Abbott, Zali Steggal has been returned for a third term, with 40.2% of the primary votes (an increase of 0.4%), substantially outpolling the Liberal candidate, who dropped 1.9% of the votes gained in 2022. Two more blue-ribbon Liberal seats where Independents are now ensconced!
The group of eight community-supported Independents at the start of the 2022 Parliament
The Queen of the Independents, Dr Helen Haines, who was elected to the seat of Indi after Cathy McGowan had served two terms (2013–2019) and has held the seat each time, was returned this election with a swing of 2.1% on the primary votes. Always returning a conservative member before this, long ago Indi was held by Isaac Isaacs (later a High Court Justice) and “Black Jack” McEwen (Country Party leader and briefly acting Prime Minister).
Alongside her, in the seat of Clark in Tasmania, Andrew Wilkie retains his seat with an increase of 3.8% in his primary votes. He has held the seat since 2010, when he was a surprise winner, coming from third in the primary vote to win the seat. He was only the sixth House candidate in seventy years to win an election from third position in the vote! This seat is named after Andrew Inglis Clark (1848-1907) a lawyer and politician who introduced proportional representation in Tasmania using the electoral system that has come to be known as Hare-Clark. If this excellent system was used in federal elections, we would have a very different configuration of members in the Federal Parliament!
Another candidate who could possibly move up from third place in the primary vote once preferences are distributed is the Independent candidate Kerryn Jones, in Fisher, Qld. Although she has only 16.5% of the primary vote, Labor has 22.2% and the front runner, the Liberal-National Party candidate, has 37.8% of the vote, which puts him in the “danger zone”. The ABC notes that the Independent candidate “could yet move into second place which will create an interesting final count” because of the low LNP primary vote. Interesting!
There’s a similar scenario in Grey, in SA, where first-time Independent candidate Anita Kuss has secured 18.4% of the primary vote. She is only4% below the votes for Labor, and the leading candidate, the Liberal, is also in the “danger zone” with 35.2% of the primary vote. The Independent would need a good proportion of the 24.3% of votes gained by the Greens and four rightwing minor parties.
Similarly, in Forrest, WA, Independent Sue Chapman has 18.4 of the primary vote, again only around 4% behind the Labor candidate, on 22.7%, and the Liberal candidate, who is very much in the “danger zone” on 31.7% of the primary vote. The 27.2% of the votes gained by the Greens, Legalise Cannabis, and three minor parties from the rightwing will be determinative. Accordingly, the ABC is calling this as a win for the Liberals.
In the seat of Bean in the southern part of Canberra, an Independent candidate with 26.9% of the vote is running close to unseating the Labor member, who suffered a swing of only 0.7% against him. We previously lived in this seat and know that David Smith is a very popular local member. The Liberals dived down 6.7% and the Greens 5.7%, so the Independent candidate, Jessie Price, has attracted votes from all directions—she is a good chance to win.
Alongside this, in the ACT as a whole, Independent David Pocock has decisively won a seat in the Senate, attaining a massive 18.59% increase in primary votes when compared with 2022. That gives him a primary vote of 39.8%, ahead of Labor on 31.6%, with 1.19 quotas on his primary vote alone. That’s a ringing endorsement!
In the seat of Calwell on the northwestern outskirts of Melbourne, three Independent candidates have run. They have secured 30.9% between the three of them, with Labor suffering a swing of 14.2% against it and the Liberals dropping by 8.1%. It is not yet clear who will emerge as the final winner in this seat, although the ABC is leaning towards Labor, with 30.9% of the primary vote, over the Liberal candidate, with 15.6% of the vote.
In Flinders in Melbourne, where the Liberal candidate scored 41.7%, there is a possibility that an Independent might take the seat. The Independent currently has 21.6% of the vote, just behind Labor on 22.2%. The ABC website says “Flinders remains in doubt as it is unclear who will finish second. A Labor second place win would deliver victory to Liberal MP Zoe McKenzie. But if Independent Ben Smith finishes second, he will attract a big majority of Labor and Green preferences. The AEC is currently trying to resolve who might finish second.”
In Kooyong, also in Melbourne, the sitting Independent candidate sits on 34.5%, a swing of 3.7% to her. The Liberal candidate drew a small swing of 0.6% but this may not be enough to enable her to take the seat from Independent Dr Monique Ryan. This seat is mighty close!
In Bradfield in northern Sydney, Independent Nicolette Boele has also almost made it over the line, with a swing to her of 4.6% taking her to 27.5% of the vote. With a possible preference flow from Labor, the Greens, and another Independent candidate, she may well just win this seat.
Dai Lee, a longterm Councillor and former Deputy Mayor of Fairfield Council has been returned in Fowler, NSW, with a 6.2% increase in primary votes, while Andrew Gee, a former Nationals MP for Calare, looks set to take the seat, with a massive 17.2% swing against his old party, the Nationals. A second Independent running in this seat obtained 15.8% of the votes, so together the Independents have 39.6% of the votes.
In Adelaide, Rebekah Sharkie of the Centre Alliance will retain the seat of Mayo, with a projected swing to her of 1.5% after distribution of preferences. And, of course, in far North Queensland, the maverick Bob Katter is returned in the seat of Leichhardt with 40.8% of the primary votes.
In the Melbourne seat of Goldstein, Tim Wilson has claimed victory, to regain the seat he lost in 2022. He has 44.2% of the primary votes, against 31.7% for Independent Zoe Daniel, who is currently tracking about 1500 votes behind Wilson after preferences are distributed.
In two rural seats, pundits were tipping wins by two strong community-supported Independents, but these did not materialise. In Wannon, in western Victoria, Alex Dyson ran for the third time against the Liberal incumbent. Although he increased his vote by 12.9%, preferences in this seat are set to deliver it to the Liberal incumbent. In Cowper, on the mid north coast of NSW, Caz Heise ran for the second time against the Nationals incumbent. She increased her vote by 3.5%, but also in this seat the preferences are pointing to a win for the Nationals incumbent.
Just to the south of Cowper, in Lyne, Jeremy Miller ran with the support of the community organisation, Independent Lyne. A primary vote of 15.84% was not enough to put him into second position, so the likely outcome will be that the new Nationals candidate will keep this as a Nationals seat. There is, however, a rather slim hope that he may receive enough preferences from the Greens (6.0% primary vote) and assorted minor party candidates in the seat (with 22.3% between them) to “catch” and then overtake the total number of votes (primary plus preferences) for the Labor candidate. There are just under 4,000 votes (not quite 4% of the votes cast) between the two candidates.
If the preferences distributed from all the minor party candidates largely avoid the Independent, he remains in third place, so his preferences would then be distributed amongst Labor and Nationals. Given the rightwing leanings of all but one of those minor parties, this seems most likely.
Or: if, perchance, the Independent candidate has attracted enough preference votes from those minor parties to put him ahead of Labor, then the preferences of the 20,000 plus votes for the Labor candidate will be distributed—and that could well push Jeremy Miller close to the 50% mark; although obviously he won’t reach that. Just how far short he falls, ultimately, is an interesting feature for those of us involved in the campaign to watch in the coming week.
Whatever the result, it is clear from this national overview that the movement to elect community-supported Independent members of parliament is strong. As Joshua Black of the Australia Institute notes, “Australia is a world leader in electing Independent MPs”. He points to the two elected to the first federal parliament—both from electorates in Queensland. Alexander Paterson was elected as an Independent Free Trade member, and James Wilkinson, elected as an Independent Labour member.
Alexander Paterson, left, and James Wilkinson, right
Black then notes that “between 1980 and 2004, 56 Independent MPs were elected to parliaments across Australia”. As well as those noted above, the list includes Ted Mack, Phil Cleary, Peter Andren, Pauline Hanson (for less than a year, before she formed her party), Bob Katter (still counted as an Independent although he also formed his own party), Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott, Kerryn Phelps, and Kylea Tink (whose seat was abolished ahead of this election). It’s a strong, enduring, and growing movement!
Five of the ten candidates standing in the electorate of Lyne came to Dungog yesterday at the start of the last week of campaigning. They were attending a Meet The Candidates forum organised by the Dungog Chamber of Commerce and held at the Dungog RSL Club.
Amongst the almost 50 people present were the Mayor and two Councillors of Dungog Shire Council. Three candidates had sent their apologies for the event. Each of the five candidates present were given ten minutes to speak about themselves and their policies. They spoke in the order that they appear on the ballot paper.
Digby Wilson (Labor) began, declaring that he is always energised by working with people. He spent 30 years working in telecommunications (with Optus and Telstra) before,retiring. He currently volunteers at St Vincent de Paul and is a councillor on Mid Coast Council; in these roles he meets many people struggling to make ends meet.
Digby spoke about the deteriorating roads and decrease in medical funding during the time that the Coalition was in power. The Coalition policy allowing people to empty superannuation savings is causing an increase in housing prices.
He affirmed that policy and character are the fundamental bases for deciding how to vote. Misrepresentation by Nationals candidate has not been fair. His speech was a little hesitant at times, but overall it was a thoughtful presentation.
Alison Penfold (Nationals) noted that she has visited Dungog on many occasions in the past and is aware of the challenges Dungog faces as the smallest shire council in the electorate. Tied funding is the way to ensure that money comes to regional councils; it is not ideological, but practical. She spoke of plans to establish a fund that will prioritise roads, healthcare, and medical needs.
She noted that “if renewables can deliver, I will support them; but I don’t believe they can. I will not be ideological, but practical.” Her focus will be to develop a cost of living plan to get the country back on track, with cuts in fuel costs, tax offsets for up to $140k, cheaper energy, and a nuclear programme that will cost far less than $600billion. The Coalition will offer incentives for first home buyers; she also rattled off a list of specific proposals in terms of health care.
Alison has worked in private enterprise and also on the staff of a member of parliament in both government and opposition. She is not interested in personality politics. However, throughout her presentation she was loud, assertive, even aggressive, which was noted by other speakers and in the informal conversations taking place after the event amongst those who had attended.
Jeremy Miller (Independent) is standing with the support of Independent Lyne, a local community movement. He has lived 30 years in the area, after moving from Canberra to Taree. Married with three kids, two at university, he now runs two businesses in Taree, employing 14 people. “I am not a typical politician”, he said; “I am not a lobbyist, but a business person who wants to get things done.” He believes it is time for something new, other than “the two tribes”.
Independent Lyne has been modelled on the process used in the Indi electorate, with a strong grassroots movement developed by Cathy McGowan, and then used by Helen Haines. Kitchen table conversations were held across the electorate, with the results reported in a Listening Report. The group called for applications, then chose a candidate through a grassroots process. If he is asked “what do you stand for?”, Jeremy points to the results of that listening phase, which has shaped the policies he stands for.
He wants to see three levels of government working together (he is also a councillor on Mid Coast Council) rather than pointing the finger at each other as to why it does not work. In Lyne, he maintains, “we can feel it in our bones” that we are getting left behind. Jeremy offered an energetic and enthusing presentation.
Keys Manley (Legalise Cannabis) has family links with Taree and Wingham, where he grew up. In 2017, he was diagnosed with a genetic mutation predisposing cancer. After a series of operations, he was introduced to medical cannabis, with oils and balms used as well. At a fourth operation to remove polyps, he was given a clean bill of health. He has since learnt about the many benefits of cannabis across many industries. It has saved his life. It offers many benefits in so many areas.
Keys advocates for civil liberties and social tolerance. There is a wastage of resources consumed by the policing of cannabis; we could free all of this by legalising it. It is safer than alcohol and other drugs. Cannabis is a rich nutrient food and it can provide a more sustainable future. “Let’s embrace this industry and funnel the resources saved into what we need to build locally”, he concluded his passionate speech.
Stephen John Burke (Australian Citizens Party) also spoke passion a speech filled with his key themes: Our system is broken, with policies of destruction, fostered by the rich, who benefit from and manipulate the current system. The ACP, he noted, is not a splinter party but has worked for over 30 years to achieve some important gains.
He then ranged over the various policies of the party, which included: No totalitarian censorship. Liberty of expression. Religious liberty. Moving away from the digital scenario—“cash is king”. A Post Office Bank so that in person banking facilities are available directly in each rural town. The speech was delivered with some humour and intensity of commitment to the issues and the solutions he proposed.
The night ended with three specific questions relating to Dungog Shire being put to the candidates for their short response each in turn: recognising some local roads as State roads, thereby attracting funding; keeping in person government services in the town; and how to maintain more youth in the town. The answers given reflected the varying experiences of the candidates, in local and Federal roles, as well as the general policy platforms on which they were standing.
Unfortunately there was no opportunity to ask questions from the floor. However, the general feeling was that the evening was a useful event for those who attended.
In preparation for the federal election, Reconciliation Taree wrote to all ten candidates standing in the Lyne electorate. They asked them a series of questions about reconciliation and invited them to provide a brief statement of their position.
Of the ten candidates:
Four candidates answered all questions and are supportive of reconciliation and Indigenous justice.
Three candidates did not respond.
A further three candidates responded but declined to answer any of the questions.
Candidates’ responses to the yes/no questions are reflected in the image that follows. Responses to the open-ended question from the four candidates who answered this question are summarised below.
Tom Ferrier (Greens) stated that “The Greens strongly supported the Yes vote for the Referendum” and referred people to the full set of Greens policies, “including our policies to support truth-telling and treaty-making, protect cultural heritage, and prioritise First Nations leadership and empowerment”, on their website: https://greens.org.au/platform
Digby Wilson (Labor) noted that “The Indigenous population of Australia remains the most disadvantaged and disenfranchised group in our society. Healing and repair are essential, grounded in respect and understanding. A divisive ‘us versus them’ mindset only pulls us further apart—we must strive for better. Preserving the history and culture of the world’s oldest living civilisation is not just a duty; it’s a necessity. To disregard this land’s heritage is to lose sight of our shared identity.”
Jeremy Miller (Independent) began by affirming “the custodianship of the Biripi, Worimi, and Wonnarua nations and peoples of Lyne”, stating “I pay my respects to their Elders- past and present-and recognise their ongoing connection to land, waters, and sky.” He continued, “I have been, and will continue to be, a strong ally to First Nations people including standing up for Welcomes to Country, supporting culturally safe spaces for children to grow and learn—like those provided through First Steps-and backing job opportunities such as the Indigenous Ranger Program. First Nations communities have long offered thoughtful, practical solutions to the challenges they face. What’s needed now is for Governments to act on those solutions, listening to and led by First Nations voices.”
Keys Manley (Legalise Cannabis) wrote that “The Legalise Cannabis Party recognises that Indigenous Australians are disproportionately affected by cannabis-related charges, contributing to systemic injustices. We support decriminalisation and legalisation to reduce these harms and ensure fair treatment under the law. Legal reform must go hand in hand with social justice, including addressing over-policing and ensuring indigenous voices lead policy decisions that affect them.”
Voters in Lyne, where these candidates are standing, may wish to consider these responses (and the fact that other candidates were not willing to respond to the questions) as they prepare to vote.
pictured: Digby Wilson, Tom Ferrier, Jeremy Miller, Keys Manley
Full disclosure: I am a member of Reconciliation Dungog and an active member of the Jeremy Miller for Lyne campaign.
A sermon preached at Dungog Uniting Church on Easter Sunday 2025.
Today is a day of celebration. We gather, we sing, we exclaim “Christ is risen!” Joy fills the air; expectation and hope are abundant. It’s a fine way to emerge from the sombre mood of Friday, when we last gathered, on day of mourning, to remember the sombre reality, “Christ has died”.
On that day, we remembered again the story of the last days of Jesus: a story of betrayal and denial, of physical abuse and verbal mocking, of abandonment and death, of grief and despair.
And yet, today, we have moved from that deep despair, into abundant joy.
Today is a day of celebration.
Today is also a day of mystery. It is a day that we cannot fully explain with simple phrases and formulaic responses. It is a day that invites us to pause, reflect, and ponder.
Last week, Lurline quoted what she called “the most electric sentence of the Bible”: “he is not here; he has risen!”
We have heard that electric expression of joy in the reading from Luke’s Gospel. “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.” (Luke 16:5)
And so we greet one another on this day: Christ is risen! Christ is risen indeed!!
That electric sentence provokes many questions.
What is it that actually happened?
How was the stone moved?
Where is the body of Jesus?
How exactly was Jesus raised from the dead?
What is the form that Jesus now takes?
What does it mean for us to hold the hope that we, too, will be raised from our death?
This day of mystery confronts us with a host of questions. Preachers and priests, scholars and writers, over decades and centuries, have asked these questions, have explored them in their words, have sought to provide explanations, all the while intending to buttress and strengthen our faith on this day of mystery.
Did the resurrection really happen? is one of the questions that is often asked on or around this day. What was the historical reality of the day? I have to say, that is a very modern question. It may surprise you, but for centuries, this was not a question that troubled the minds of believers. It is really only something that has concerned us in the last few centuries—from the time of The Enlightenment, when the focus shifted from lives lived by faith to lives exploring scientific and historical realities.
The question about “what really happened?” is a classic post-Enlightenment question. It’s not something that occurred to those of ancient times. So the biblical texts of antiquity don’t provide any explanation that satisfies us modern listeners and readers.
Indeed, this is a question that cannot be answered by a simple historical “proof”. The resurrection is, by its nature, something that transcends the material, earthly focus of our modern era. It resists clearcut scientific or historical questions. It remains, in the end, a mystery.
What actually happened to the body of Jesus? is another question that is often asked about today—which also reflects the time in which we live, when “what happened?” is often an important question. And the answer offered by numerous writers has varied, ranging from “the body was stolen” through to “a miracle happened”. Again, a satisfactory explanation is beyond us. It is a mystery.
How was the stone removed from the doorway to the tomb? is another question that is asked. Mark’s Gospel says that when the women came to the tomb to anoint Jesus, “they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back” (Mark 16:4). So, too, does Luke (Luke 16:2); neither evangelist was interested in providing any explanation about this curious feature.
The account in Matthew’s gospel, however, does venture an answer: when the women arrive at the, “suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it” (Matt 28:2). That’s the explanation, it seems. This evangelist then continues, “his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow; for fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men” (Matt 28:3–4). Understandably!
However, we need to note that Matthew’s account had also reported an earthquake at the very moment that Jesus had died on the cross: “Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.” (Matt 27:50–53).
That’s quite a story! and even more striking, perhaps, is the fact that none of the other evangelists report this incredible series of events: an earthquake and the raising of dead people at the moment Jesus died. It’s not in Mark’s earliest version; and it’s not in Luke’s later account, that we heard this morning. We can see, I hope, that this is part of the particular way that Matthew—a faithful Jew who held to the hope that God would act to come to earth to bring in the kingdom of God—tells the story of Jesus.
The earthquake that happens as Jesus dies and the second earthquake that comes just as the women discover the empty tomb both draw on apocalyptic imagery that the later prophets used and developed in their prophetic oracles. It’s not an actual historical account. It’s a vivid, dramatic telling of the story, designed to highlight this one central fact: God acted, God came to us, God raised Jesus from the dead, the kingdom of God is now present!
So today is a day of celebration; we celebrate that God has determined to be amongst us in a new, startling, and dramatic way. That is what motivated the women, when the discovered the tomb to be empty, made haste to return to the other disciples, to tell them “he is not here; he has risen” (Luke 24:8).
This is also a day of mystery, for the way that God came to us, raising Jesus from the dead, poses a range of questions, as I have considered. There is much to celebrate, and yet so many questions to consider. And that is probably why the apostles—Peter and Andrew, James and John, Matthew and Bartholomew and Thaddeus and Thomas—all men, it must be noted, heard what the women told them, and as Luke crisply reports: “it seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them” (Luke 24:11). Ah, the patriarchy!
It was, they presumed, a strange story, told by hysterical women, completely unbelievable—even though the men in the tomb had explicitly reminded the women of what Jesus had said “while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again” (Luke 24:7).
It’s a day of celebration; a day of mystery; and perhaps, in the end, today is a day that calls for faith. At the heart of the story of Jesus, as we have heard over the last few days, is a story of betrayal and denial, of physical abuse and verbal mocking, of abandonment and death, of grief and despair. It could very well lead us to a pessimistic view of the world, and to dampen our hopes.
Yet today is a day that calls us to have faith. To have faith that death is not the end of life. To have faith that there is more to our existence than our physical bodies. To have faith that God’s desire and intention is to work through even the despair of the lowest moments and to offer us the hope of what we can but glimpse today.
For that is what the resurrection of Jesus stands for. We may not be able to answer the many questions that it poses. But we can affirm, with the faithful people of ages past, and across the world M.today, and those still to come in the future beyond us, that “Christ has died. Christ is risen“ … “Christ is risen indeed! Alleluia!” For God is with us.
The term “Woke” was first used in a positive manner by Afro-Americans. It can be traced back to an 1891 book by Joel Chandler Harris (best known for his “Uncle Remus” stories). In the 1930s, it was used by Blacks quite often to describe being aware of racial prejudice and discrimination, often in the phrase “stay woke”. That usage continued through the decades and was picked up by the Black Power movement in the 1970s, and then increased in usage in the Black Lives Matter push of the 2010s.
In 2017, the Oxford English Dictionary added “woke” to its official lexicon, noting that it was most often used “in a derogatory sense”. This reflects the reality that the term had been picked up and hijacked by people of more conservative political and social perspectives (predominantly white people), and employed as a way of denigrating people with a social conscience committed to social justice. It’s a strange recent twist to what had been a proud Black statement.
The same development in meaning can be seen with the word “Teal”, with a much more recent origin and a highly-compressed trajectory in turning from a positive to a negative meaning. It was first used as a political label in the 2019 federal election campaign of Zali Steggall, when she defeated Tony Abbott in the seat of Warringah (NSW).
The term (and the campaign colour) was then picked up and used in a constructive sense by some (but not all) community-supported independents in the 2022 election: Dr Monique Ryan in Koorong (Vic), Allegra Spender in Wentworth (NSW), Dr Sophie Scamps in Mackellar (NSW), Zoe Daniel in Goldstein (Vic), Kate Chaney in Curtin (WA), and Zali Steggall in her successful re-election campaign in Warringah.
The colour has successfully differentiated community-supported Independents from the “old parties” of Labor (bright red), Nationals (deep green), and Liberal (royal blue), as well as the Greens (light green).
However, the word “teal” has been adopted by uncritical conservative people as used as a way to lump together a widely-disparate group of independents and frame them all as “Labor lite” or “pale Green”. It has become a derogatory term for such people, as they look for an easy (and lazy) way to caricature those standing as Independents, dismissing them all as “leftwing woke ideology” (three slurs in one phrase!).
Too often there is a conflation of “Teal” and “Climate 200”, with the implication being that all candidates supported by C200 are Teals who are climate change warriors—“leftwards”, as some derogatorily call them. However, the C200 website clearly shows that the independents they are supporting are using a range of colours.
Quite a number of the Independent candidates that the Community independents Project is supporting are using teal, but others are using orange, and a few are using yellow. Standing against Peter Dutton in Dickson (Qld), Ellie Smith is using magenta. Overall, the choice of colour for Independents it is made on an individual basis. That’s far from the monolithic imposition by the parties of the red of Labor or blue for the Liberals, the lighter green for Greens and the deeper green for the Nationals. These are required of all of their candidates around the country. Community-supported Independents each choose their colour and their marketing strategy.
For myself, I am wearing orange and supporting Jeremy Miller as the Community Independent for Lyne. Jeremy has been chosen by community members across the Lyne electorate in response to a twelve month listening campaign aimed at prioritising the local needs of the Lyne electorate. His fundamental commitment is to listen to the people of the electorate and advocate strongly for the needs of people in Lyne.
Is moving to nuclear power as the basis for electricity generation in Australia a reasonable move? There are many problems with this idea. Here are seven key reasons that come to mind for me.
1. Time. We are a long way from having the capacity for nuclear power to provide electricity in Australia. If we were to start work right now, there wouldn’t be any nuclear-generated electricity before 2040 at the earliest, according to the CSIRO. Even then, it might take years longer. Nuclear energy is not an immediate solution to our energy production issues.
2. Pollution. In the meantime, while we wait for the nuclear power plants to be built, there will be about a billion tonnes of climate pollution from burning more coal and gas. It would be more sensible to spend money in developing truly renewable sources of energy. These will cause far less climate pollution than nuclear power. Nuclear energy produces lots of pollution.
3. Cost. The cost of building nuclear power plants to generate electricity is much higher than any other source of power. Small Modular Reactors cost more than four times more than Solar Farms to build and maintain. Even larger-scale nuclear plants (which are not in view for Australia at the moment) are two and a half times the cost involved in harnessing renewable sources of energy. Nuclear energy is bad economic policy.
4. Efficiency. For the seventh year in a row, the CSIRO has said that renewable sources of energy are the most cost-efficient way of generating electricity. Large scale Solar PV farms is the most efficient. Gas turbine costs are rising. Nuclear power is the most expensive and least efficient way to generate electricity.
5. Risks for the environment. There are large environmental risks associated with nuclear power. Radioactive waste is a by-product of producing nuclear energy. This waste needs to be transported safely and stored securely. If it escapes, it can cause significant damage to human beings and to the whole environment. The risk lasts for thousands of years. Again: nuclear energy is bad environmental policy.
6. Risks for people. We have seen that even nuclear power plants that have high safety standards have failed to keep radioactive materials safe (see Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011). Many people have suffered from the breakdown of these nuclear reactor sites. Playing with this risk in Australia is unacceptable. Nuclear energy is risky.
7. Water. Nuclear reactors would require massive amounts of water to keep them running. A typical 1600MW nuclear facility uses 2,000 litres of water per second—that’s how much water four average households use in one year! With increased risks of drought in Australia, the driest continent on earth, this is bad management of our resources. Again, nuclear energy is bad environmental policy.
Sources consulted:
Centre for Independent Studies, “The six fundamental flaws underpinning the energy transition” (2 May 2014)
Centre for Independent Studies, “Nuclear vs Renewables—which is cheaper?” (Energy News Bulletin, 12 July, 2024)
Climate Council, “Why nuclear energy is not worth the risk for Australia” (media release, 28 January 2025)
Climate Council, “CSIRO confirms nuclear fantasy would cost twice as much as renewables” (explainer, 10 December 2024)
CSIRO, “GenCost: cost of building Australia’s future electricity needs” (Consultation Draft released February 2025; final version to be released in the second quarter of 2025)
Jeremy Miller has been out and about around the electorate this past weekend, with appearances at “Politics in the Pub” at Stroud on Friday, “Meet and Greet” at North Haven on Saturday, and Gloucester Markets on Sunday. He was also on ABC Mid North Coast radio early this morning, in a debate with the National Candidate. He is getting around!
On Friday night, a crowd of interested folks gathered in the Central Hotel at Stroud to hear Jeremy speak about his life, his commitment to the community-supported model that Independents are following around the country, and his views on a range of issues.
The style wasn’t a typical “town hall meeting” where the candidate stands and speaks for a time before taking questions. Rather, it was more of a “kitchen table conversation”, with people sitting around the tables in the pub’s dining room and Jeremy fielding questions as they were raised. The back-and-forth meant that people could sense the integrity, knowledge, and commitment that Jeremy brings to his candidature.
No question was out of order for Jeremy. “What will you do to help address the changing climate?” He affirmed that the evidence of science should always be the guide to what we do. “How will you help motorists who are frustrated with the long wait time to get onto the highway, with flyovers not likely for at least 15 years?” Jeremy indicated he will take this on notice and investigate this once elected; “it’s a complex matter”. “How can we improve the roads in the electorate?” Jeremy noted that funding for roads in this electorate has declined $18mill in real terms over recent years; a restoration of the 1% of tax paid to councils for roads would be good!
“What do you think about nuclear power?” He responded that he is not convinced this is either environmentally or economically sensible, and does not see that government should run such a business. “What do you think about windfarms?” He noted that he is supportive, in principle, of renewable energy, but can see some unresolved issues with the specific proposal off Port Stephens). And “what are your views on immigration?” Jeremy’s answer began by affirming that Australia has been built on immigration; “we need a balanced intake but there are international agreements that we need to keep”, he noted.
A particularly important question put to him was “what would you do if you heard a clear view in the electorate that they want something that conflicts with your personal values?” Jeremy spoke about needing to hear the message clearly, but also about the role that a parliamentarian has in educating the electorate about complex issues. He cited the model of Participatory Democracy used by the Independent Member for North Sydney, Kylea Tink, who regularly gathers a “representative jury” from across the electorate to speaks a day considering expert views. At the end, the matter is presented to a Citizens Assembly for wider discussion. Jeremy plans to implement this if he is elected.
Finally, in response to the question, “why are you doing this?”, he cited his approach during the two decades that he worked as a DJ on local radio in Taree. “If I have the attention of people, I need to do something with it”, he said. “I didn’t want to squander the influence that this job gave me on silly and irrelevant things.” He cited the fact that, over the years, he has been active in his local P&C and in community action groups seeking to improve things in the community. He brings this same commitment to his role as a federal MP, representing the people of the electorate.
Jeremy Miller is the Community Independent for Lyne, chosen by community members across the Lyne electorate in response to a twelve month listening campaign aimed at prioritising the local needs of the Lyne electorate.
(Yes, that’s the left-rear perspective on yours truly in the front of this photo!)
One of the questions that is often put to Independent candidates relates to the issue of funding. “Where is your funding coming from?” “Your candidate is on the Climate 200 website—that means they’re a Teal, doesn’t it?” The implication is that Teal is somehow “Green-lite” and that there are murky climate-change figures lurking behind the group, feeding it money. Some basic figures might be helpful here.
For the 2022 election campaign, Climate 200 raised over $12 million and used it to back 23 independent candidates. These include Dr Monique Ryan, Zoe Daniel, Kylea Tink and Allegra Spender. The crowdfunded initiative received donations from every electorate in the country, with 11,500 donors in total. One third of these came from rural and regional areas.
Over the past financial year, Climate 200 has disclosed that they have received a total of $4.4m in donations. One donor, Robert Keldoulis and his investment firm Keldoulis Investments Pty Ltd, gave $1.1 million. Climate and energy market-focused trader Marcus Catsaras also donated $1 million. Other donations came from the large number of individuals, located right around the country, who are keen to support independent candidates who support an evidence-informed response to climate change, integrity in parliament, and gender equity. That’s all they ask for; they don’t govern the policies of each candidate.
Alongside that $4.4 million given to Climate 200, we should place the major parties. The Australian Electoral Commission recently published a report which indicated that almost $160m flowed to the established major parties (Labor, Liberal, National, and Greens) in the past financial year, in preparation for the 2025 election. Labor’s branches received a total of $67.5m in receipts in the past financial year, compared with the Liberals’ and Nationals’ combined $72.2m. The Greens received $17.1m.
Whilst the majority of these donations were declared, the source for $67.2m was not declared. That’s troubling. The major parties apparently have ways around the laws that are still in place for this election. About half of what was donated to the Coalition has not been publically declared. It’s a lesser proportion for Labor. But that is still a worry.
Betting companies gave large amounts to Labor. In 2022, Sportsbet donated $88,000, Tabcorp $60,500 and the peak body Responsible Wagering Australia gave $66,000. Overall, Labor received almost $300,000 in 2021–2022, the Liberals a little over $100,000, and the Nationals received around $80,000.
Figures reported to the Australian Electoral Commission and analysed by the parliamentary library, show donations from the biggest gambling companies involved in horse betting to the major parties have increased from $66,650 in 2013–14 to $488,000 in 2022–23, representing a 632% growth. The major parties have taken this money without gumption. It’s a disgrace.
The Labor Party and the Liberal Party do not accept donations from tobacco industry players, but other parties do. In 2021–22 for example, Philip Morris Ltd donated $110,000 to political parties, split between Liberal Democratic party and the National Party.
The two major parties continue to receive donations from fossil fuel companies. Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting donated $500,000 to the Coalition, while the Minerals Council of Australia gave $382,465 in donations to several Labor and Coalition branches.
A report released this week predicts that a Coalition proposal to limit the rollout of renewable energy could stop at least $58bn of private investment in new developments and halt billions of dollars in flow-on spending in communities. Although it has not said it would limit renewable energy to 54%, the Coalition has said that it would not support as much solar and wind energy, and that it would scrap Labor’s $20bn rewiring the nation fund to build transmission links across the country.
That’s what comes from accepting fossil fuel money and supporting a destructive, dying industry. The policies of the Coalition—and, indeed, the policies of Labor—continue reflect that they cannot give up their damaging addiction to fossil fuels. We are helping to sign the death warrant of humanity and the planet by continuing on this path.
Climate 200 passes on all donations received to community-supported Independents. They report that their donors come from all walks of life. “They include entrepreneurs, farmers, tradespeople, professionals, teachers, pensioners, and health care workers. One-third are from rural and regional Australia and collectively they hail from every single electorate in the country.”
They note that “All our donors hoped for a better future for the planet and a more civilised politics.” That’s a markedly different motivation from the donations made by commercial business interests, who lobby the government incessantly and fund all major parties with the intention that they will be able to influence legislation. It’s a cancer at the heart of our system.
Climate 200 also notes that all their donors who give above the disclosure threshold each financial year “will be disclosed in accordance with AEC regulations, [however] the majority of our donors are below this threshold and have agreed to share their identity anyway.” There is full, open, transparent disclosure. Unlike the major parties, who are shifty and reticent about the declarations that they do have to make. It’s a clear contrast, offering a clear choice.
*****
In writing this blog, I have consulted the following websites:
An Informed Faith 