Injustice is not an article of faith for all churches

This is a longer version of an opinion piece first published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 January 2013

In all the outcry about the broad exemptions granted to faith-based organisations in the Government’s draft anti-discrimination legislation, the fact that there are some faith-based organisations that think differently about such matters has been largely overlooked.

For some churches, freedom of religion does not mean the freedom to discriminate. Across many church agencies a commitment to non-discriminatory employment is keenly observed in the employment of teachers, ground staff, nurses or social workers. This commitment arises from some of the core principles of Christian faith.

On behalf of the Uniting Church in Australia Assembly (the church’s national council), UnitingJustice Australia has been engaging with the development of the consolidated anti-discrimination legislation since the Attorney General’s Department began working on it. Also, over the years, we have spoken to many federal politicians about the Church’s commitment to laws which uphold our international human rights obligations (including in relation to torture, mandatory detention, freedom of religion, the rights of Indigenous peoples, and the development of a Human Rights Act) and which support the building of a society where all people are treated with dignity and respect.

We do this because we believe that in the eyes of God everyone is of value; everyone is precious. The miraculous healing stories in the gospels, regardless of whether you believe in their literal truth or not, are demonstrations of a love that reaches out to those who are marginalised by prejudice and which challenges the systems, religious an otherwise, that force people to the edges of society where they have no chance of flourishing.

The Christian church has all too often failed to demonstrate this unconditional love. We have, over the centuries, perpetrated and condoned (often by our silence) prejudice, violence and abuse. We are still a long way from blameless.

It is no wonder, then, that many have stopped listening so that even when we do speak of our vision of hope, justice and inclusion, we are rarely heard.

 The Uniting Church is the third largest Christian denomination in the country and we represent one of the major mainstream Christian traditions. Yet, for the Government and the Opposition, on this issue, our voice seems to be irrelevant. I do not understand why.

This is a good piece of legislation and it will be improved with some amendments. It deserves to be passed and we will all be better for it.

All legislation which refers to human rights is difficult to draft. Balancing competing rights is not easy and balancing the right to freedom of religion and belief with other rights is one of the most difficult areas.

Like every other religious organisation, the Uniting Church believes we must have an exception to discriminate in the training and appointment of our religious leaders, and this may include school principals and community service agency CEOs as well as ministers and pastors. However, I do not know of a Uniting Church school or UnitingCare agency which would discriminate in employment for teachers, ground staff, nurses or social workers. This does not mean we are perfect but, as a Church, we are committed to the principle of non-discrimination in employment and we continue to work to ensure this is reflected in every aspect of our life.

The inclusion of such attributes as pregnancy and potential pregnancy in the exception for religious bodies and educational institutions I find offensive and dangerous – one can only imagine how this might be used against women! These must be removed.

UnitingJustice has also expressed, a number of times, our concern with such phrases as “conforms to the doctrine, tenets or beliefs of that religion” and “necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion”.

A thesis could be written about the struggles within some Christian traditions about what counts for legitimate belief within orthodox Christian doctrine. Some of the most important debates we have in the Uniting Church are about which of our “beliefs” are core to the doctrine (orthodox) or reasonable expressions of theological diversity within the tradition. One of the things I love most about the Uniting Church is our capacity to live with diversity. But if we sometimes have trouble defining this, how fraught will this be for a secular tribunal or court to determine?

With regards to the second ground, I could give numerous examples of how different individual Uniting Church members are in terms of what offends our “religious sensitivities”. Personally, I have no expectation that my religious sensitivities should be any more privileged than the sensitivities other people may have about matters to do with sexuality, marriage or gender identity. The core issues here should actually be about mutual respect, care and the acceptance of the value of diversity for a healthy society.

Regardless of the legislation, the Uniting Church, its councils and its agencies will continue to uphold our commitment to non-discriminatory employment practices. Living God’s mission to love without distinction and work for justice and peace in the world demands this of us.

‘Labour’: not another commodity

Opening Statement: Independent Inquiry into Insecure Work

Sydney, 28 February 2012

In 2009 the Uniting Church in Australia adopted a statement called An Economy of Life: re-imagining human progress for a flourishing world. This statement describes the Church’s concern that our understandings of progress and wellbeing are now determined by a global economic system geared to the making of profit for a few at the expense of both the current and future wellbeing of all people, especially the most vulnerable, and the wellbeing of the planet.

The statement was an expression of our concern that the economy, rather than being recognised as a tool to support our wellbeing, has become an end in itself: if something is good for the economy, then it is good, full-stop; and something is ‘good for the economy’ if it promotes continual growth in spending and /or profit. This system that prioritises economic growth above all other indicators of human and ecological wellbeing is now so deeply entrenched in our worldview that it becomes almost impossible for most us to even imagine any alternative. Those that do try to challenge this dominant worldview are most often charged with being hopeless idealists, dreamers and ‘out of touch’ with reality.

The Uniting Church will wear those charges because we do believe that another way is possible. Our vision for a different kind of economy arises from our faith in God’s will for a just, peaceful and reconciled world. And so we believe that we can shift our focus from the making of profit to the growing of healthy communities which support the flourishing of all people.

Work is critical in this endeavour. A Christian vision of ‘labour’ emphasises the role that work plays in providing meaning and purpose in people’s lives, connecting them to their communities and the wider society and giving them a sense of agency over their own life. People who suffer long-term unemployment, who experience injustice at work or whose work is demeaning suffer in many ways, and their families suffer too.

‘Labour’ must never be just another commodity in the economic sphere. A Christian vision of work has at its heart the need for people to find dignity in work and receive fair and just reward for their work; and while work is important, we must also ensure that work does not consume our time for leisure, the building and maintaining of relationships and participation in community life.

There is enough evidence, some of which we have drawn on in our submission, to know that in Australia we have serious problems with rising levels of casual work and under-employment. Casual employees now represent 25% of the Australian workforce – one of the highest rates amongst OECD countries. These casual employees are not protected by common law provisions or statutory regulations and despite the common belief that casual employees receive higher hourly rates of pay, only a small number in fact receive compensatory loading.

It is not surprising that 59% of casual employees would prefer to be in more secure work. The detrimental effects of casual work include poor economic security, the inability to secure housing, lack of training and skills development, a greater risk of moving into unemployment and work being prioritised over other life interests.

The Uniting Church is concerned for low-paid and vulnerable workers. Our submission has drawn attention especially to the plight of Indigenous Australians and refugees in the labour force – people for whom decent work and just employment rewards and conditions are absolutely critical for their health and wellbeing as individuals and as communities. We have also drawn attention to the continuing issue of gender discrimination and it is, of course, women who are already disadvantaged who suffer most the effects of casualisation and under-employment.

As a society we cannot begin to challenge the dominant destructive systems and structures that determine how we live together until we decide that we will accept the realities of life. Employment policies in this country will not change until our governments decide that they are ready to truly see what is happening. One of the most important steps in addressing the problems of insecure work in Australia is for government to change what they must know are the out-dated and ineffectual definitions currently used to monitor employment statistics. While we have seen some recent policy initiatives to help address gender inequity, there is more to be done here too. Reform of the tax and transfer system must not be relegated to ‘the too-hard basket’, attention must be paid to the plight of refugees in Australia, many of whom are highly skilled and experienced but who cannot find appropriate and secure work, and significantly the Government must abandon the ‘one size fits all’ approach to Indigenous policy and honestly engage with Indigenous communities in genuine consultation to discover local solutions.

Australia’s policies must focus on producing an economy that works for people and not against them, and that serves the interests of all in the community without sacrificing the needs of those already vulnerable. It is possible, we know what to do, but it needs to begin by naming the interests and confronting the powers. I urge the Committee to be courageous in its report. The Uniting Church in Australia will be standing with you.

Thoughts on that ANZAC Day Twitter controversy

Today I’m back at work after a few weeks leave. Over the Easter and ANZAC Day long weekend I tried to maintain that holiday mood by only infrequently and warily checking out my Twitter feed. I love Twitter but for me, even though my account is my own, it does drag me to a ‘work place’. It serves as my personal news feed and while the views I express are my own (UnitingJustice Australia, the agency for which I serve as National Director, has its own organisational page), I do use it to promote the work of UnitingJustice and the Uniting Church more broadly. I try never to forget that even though I am expressing personal views they will be read by most in the context of the position I hold within the Church. It is the same with this blog.

On ANZAC Day, then, it was with some despair that I logged on to find a raging torrent of tweets condemning Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby for an earlier tweet expressing his view that gay marriage and Islam did not represent the Australia the ANZACS fought for.

Just hope that as we remember Servicemen and women today we remember the Australia they fought for – wasn’t gay marriage and Islamic! (posted at @JimWallaceACL)

All of this has since received much media attention. By the end of that day, Rod Benson, who is probably Australia’s leading tweeting public theologian, had written a (very good) blog which is now also available on the (very good) ABC Religion and Ethics website http://bit.ly/flxait.

I am not as prolific a tweeter as Rod but I do like to engage as much as I can. Not wanting to lose that holiday feel, I did nothing more than publicly agree with Rod that the Twitter account in question appeared to be genuine (the question had been raised) and send this tweet to Julie Posetti, a Canberra-based journalism academic and high-profile tweeter:

@julieposetti Sadly too many think this is what all Christians think. But Jesus challenged religious bigotry & social custom that excluded.

It was not long before I was being challenged on Twitter to issue a Uniting Church statement condemning Jim Wallace’s remark.

This blog post is my personal response to those demands and to the debate that Jim Wallace’s tweet has stirred. I need to try keeping it succinct and so offer some dot points for information and consideration.

• I was not impressed with Jim Wallace’s tweet but nor was I surprised. His views on gay rights and religious diversity are well known. I have previously debated him on the program Sunday Nights with John Cleary on ABC Radio on human rights.
• I have been concerned for some time that while ACL says that it does not represent all Christians or speak for all the churches, the continuing engagement of many church leaders in ACL organised events feeds perceptions that ACL does. I am also concerned that our political leaders find it too easy and too convenient to regard it as some kind of de facto peak body. It is not.
• UnitingJustice and the Uniting Church’s National Assembly have well known views on such issues as gay rights, human rights, religious freedom and diversity. Anyone who cares to read about them can see various media statements, submissions to government and other inquiries, and church resource material, for example, those produced in the lead-up to the last election, on the UnitingJustice Australia website www.unitingjustice.org.au.
• I cannot unilaterally issue a public statement in the name of the Uniting Church. In fact, no-one can, not even the President or the synod (state) Moderators.
• While the Uniting Church is not afraid to declare different positions to those of our ecumenical friends on social issues and matters of public policy, the Church’s councils and agencies do not engage in public arguments with Christian leaders or public figures. We try hard to keep the issues at the heart of the media stories, preferring not to feed the media’s obsession with Christian in-fighting.
• The Uniting Church is deeply committed to its relationships with peoples of other faiths and works within the community to help build understanding, respect and acceptance.
• While UnitingJustice supports and champions the rights of the GLBTI community in society and within the Church, and the Uniting Church as a whole is rightly regarded as the most gay-friendly mainstream denomination in the country, it is no secret that there are some in the Uniting Church who would prefer it to be otherwise.
• It is also no secret that the official Uniting Church position on marriage is that it is for heterosexual couples only. This is not likely to be challenged any time soon but I am pretty sure (and hopeful) that one day it will be.

Now, specifically on Jim Wallace’s tweet, my reading of such sentiments is that they represent an ossified Christian theology that has very few resources to cope with the demands of a post-modern, globalised world. It is a theology that declares only one theological reading of our social world and so leads its adherents into a corner, fighting a rear-guard battle against the end of Christendom and social change in general. It is a theology that stands as a once and for all interpretation on Christian life and thought, failing to account for the fact that over the thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition, the Christian faith has survived because it is a living faith.

The Christian faith speaks of God’s indiscriminate and unconditional love for all people with stories that can and do travel to different peoples across cultures and throughout the ages. The stories have proved so powerful and enduring precisely because they are alive, open to constant reinterpretation in the light we what we continue to experience of ourselves and our world and our God. Because they speak to the deepest parts of our humanity they are stories, thank God, that will continue to live and grow with us as we learn and experience what it means to be human on this planet and what it means to be loved by a God of grace and justice.

You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/EleniePoulos.

You can follow UnitingJustice Australia on Twitter at http://twitter.com/UnitingJustice.

Whose lives do we grieve? Human rights in Australia

I have been committed to social justice and human rights for a long time, but one particularly distressing event turned this commitment into a driving passion.

One day, some years ago now, in an election year, I awoke to hear that a Norwegian boat which had rescued a few hundred people needing care and safety had been denied entry into Australia. Not long after that I saw images of those rescued people being herded onto a military vessel, and taken to a place named after the season of peace and goodwill from which they would be taken to a failed state in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific.

I had seen disturbing and unsettling images of the fences around persecuted people before, but not until then did it start to make me angry. These faces behind the fences were not the persecuted in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan where brutal regimes and dictators ruled, but the persecuted ones from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, here in Australia, locked up behind our fences. And not just any fences, razor wire fences. And there were children behind the razor wire.

We were told that there were fences around ‘these people’ because they had broken the law. They had come to our country by boat – uninvited. We heard that they were probably terrorists. We were told that we should be afraid because there were hordes more of these people coming and they would be dangerous. We knew that they were dangerous and mad because we saw them throw their children into the sea.

I heard people around me calling for the persecuted ones to be kept behind the razor wire because they didn’t deserve to be here and they would take away all the things we valued in life, all the things that were ours – our homes, our jobs and our security. I looked at the people around me as they looked behind the razor wire and into the face of the children. But it wasn’t children they saw – they saw the enemy who would one day rape their daughters and kill their sons. They looked behind the razor wire into the faces of ‘illegals’, worse than criminals and deserving of treatment harsher than criminals.

Too many of us did not see asylum seekers in detention centres as people whose human rights were being abused by public policy and its implementation. We did not see it until we saw Cornelia Rau.

After this horrendous and eye-opening demonstration of policies gone bad, the Howard Government and then the Rudd and Gillard Governments all made some significant changes for a more humane system that also better reflected the spirit of international human rights law. But in 2010, in another election year, we found ourselves in danger of going back to where we were – with some politicians deciding that for the sake of electoral gain it is entirely acceptable to score cheap political points by demonising a group of vulnerable and already traumatised people.

In a brilliant essay which reflects on the post-September 11 world entitled ‘Violence, Mourning and Politics’ (in Precarious Life: The Powers of mourning and violence, 2004), the philosopher Judith Butler reflects on grief and loss and explores what basis for community we might find in our “vulnerability to loss and the task of mourning that follows”.

In the violent context of today’s world, she asks who is that we mourn for? who is it that we don’t mourn? She writes, “Who counts as human? Whose lives count as lives?… what makes for a grievable life?”.

I think it’s fair to say that many Australians do not grieve the lives that are decimated in our detention centres, not because of any intended malice but because we have so internalised the idea that some people in the world are less worthy than others that we can’t decipher the politics or deconstruct our own responses. The losses suffered by asylum seekers do not figure in whatever we understand as a community to be our shared human vulnerability to loss. We do not believe it’s necessary to take account of their experiences of loss. In fact, we seem quite comfortable allowing them to be punished for the losses they have already experienced.

Butler’s questions are a challenge for us when thinking about the kind of society we might want to be and I believe that, at its heart, human rights discourse is the best universal answer we have been able to come up with to her questions: who counts as human? whose lives count as lives?

I believe that the example of children in detention centres, on its own, is enough to convince that we cannot always be trusted to act justly merely by virtue of our own sense of being a decent, fair and civilised society. It is not a fair, decent and civilised society that allows a popularly elected democratic government to lock up children for years in complete disregard for their wellbeing.

There are other examples too, numerous ones that demonstrate the sometimes less than stellar values we exhibit as a society and the inadequacies of our laws. There have been laws made that have had discriminatory and detrimental effects (deliberate or unintended) on distinct segments of the population, for example, Indigenous Australians, people who are homeless and low-income workers. Other policies, particularly in the wake of ‘September 11’, were implemented with anywhere from inadequate attention to complete disregard for civil and political rights resulting in the impairment of the right to a fair trial and to freedom of speech and association. While we may have believed that such human rights were safe in Australia, it has become clear that they are not adequately protected.

We need to do everything we can to help ourselves. We need systems and structures and language that support the growth of communities which are vibrant, inclusive and safe places, places where people experience dignity and respect and are enabled to flourish as individuals.

Human rights discourse is the universal language we have developed (out of one of the worst chapters of human history – the Holocaust) to talk about our shared values and to describe the conditions necessary for the ensuring that we keep our eyes on the idea of the ‘common good’. It is expressed in law because the law is one of the best tools we have for describing a society’s values and keeping us accountable to each other.

When considering human rights then, you have no choice but to also reflect on questions of values, morality, and shared and individual responsibilities and accountabilities. When people’s human rights are abused, their dignity is abused and the common good is threatened. When we allow public policy to allocate levels of dignity according to a person’s perceived worthiness, then we have answered Butler’s questions in this way: not every life is equal; there are some who are not worthy of our grief. Within a Christian framework that answer is: not every person is created in the image of God; God’s love is conditional.

The current Government missed a rare opportunity after a recommendation by the recent National Human Rights Consultation (in line with majority public support expressed through that Consultation) to move towards a Human Rights Act in this country.

Australia is the only developed democratic nation without some form of national legislative or constitutional human rights protection. Some of the most vocal opponents to human rights legislation – white, middle aged, well-education, rich men – criticise it on the grounds that it will give power to minorities and legitimacy to their voices and they are right. It will. This is the point of human rights law. It demands of the government and the public service and the institutions and organisations that implement government policy, pay heed to the effects of legislation on those most vulnerable, those whose voices are rarely heard and whose needs are usually ignored.

The Uniting Church has, since its inception, voiced its commitment to human rights. In its Statement to the Nation at its inauguration in 1977 the Church promised that it would “oppose all forms of discrimination which infringe basic rights and freedoms”. It promised to work for an end to poverty, racism and injustice and to stand up for such rights as religious liberty, civil and political freedom, education and adequate healthcare for all.

Some Christian groups and individuals receive significant media reporting of their concern for how stronger human rights and anti-discrimination legislation might erode religious freedoms in such areas as employment and freedom of conscience. I understand these concerns, but the institutions of the church are strong and well-supported in Australia – we have the capacity to stand up for ourselves when we need to. It is vulnerable and marginalised people, those whom the Church is called to serve, whose lives will be improved by more robust human rights protections.

It is the responsibility of all of us to seek the common good: to help build a just, peaceful, inclusive and prosperous society, where all people are valued, where the first peoples of this land are respected as the precious soul of the nation, where civil liberties are taken seriously and where the diversity of religions, languages and cultures is regarded as a great gift; where everyone has a home, decent work, access to a good education and good healthcare and the opportunity to live meaningful lives free from fear, prejudice and violence.

In this endeavour, human rights is just one important tool at our disposal. But it is a necessary tool.

Human rights is an expression of shared hope and shared values, a language which enables people to talk across the usual divides of culture and religion and ideology about what it means to be human, about the values inherent to our very humanity and how we might be accountable to each other for upholding our humanity and the common good. It is not perfect and it’s far from sufficient but it does matter and it can make a difference. The time to do something about it is here. A culture of fear and division has held the soul of this country for long enough. We must recover our capacity to count everyone’s life as valuable and worthy. Life will be better this way, for all of us.

This opinion piece was first published on the Religion and Ethics site of ABC Online, 10 December 2010 http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/12/10/3090430.htm?topic1=home&topic2=

---

Mandatory detention has had its day

Today the Uniting Church in Australia has again called for an end to the policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers who come by boat. Here is what we said:

The Uniting Church in Australia has called on the Australian Government to urgently review the policy of the mandatory detention of asylum seekers.

The Director of UnitingJustice Australia, the Uniting Church’s national justice agency, Rev. Elenie Poulos said, “The tragic events at Villawood Detention Centre this week are a stark reminder of what the Government knows to be true: the prolonged mandatory detention of asylum seekers compounds the suffering of people who have already endured considerable mental and physical trauma.

“Deteriorating conditions for asylum seekers on Christmas Island, in Darwin and Curtin and in alternative places of detention, are an indication that quick action needs to be taken. Radical change is necessary if we are to avoid a re-run of the post-Tampa horrors of Port Hedland, Curtin at its worst, Baxter, Nauru and Manus Island,” said Rev. Poulos.

The Uniting Church in Australia has for many years been calling on successive governments to end the policy of mandatory detention for those who arrive by boat and commit fully to onshore processing.

Rev. Poulos said, “Instead of expanding the failed paradigm of detention facilities and offshore processing, just a small proportion of that money could fund alternative programs which allow asylum seekers – after health, security and identity checks have been done – to reside peacefully in the community while their claims for refugee protection are assessed. This is the current practice for those who arrive by air and then claim asylum.

“We have been pleased to hear the new Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, speak plainly about the complex, global situation of asylum seekers and the very small numbers who come to Australia compared with other countries”, said Rev. Poulos.

“We urge the Government to continue this move away from using asylum seekers to score cheap political points and call on the Opposition to do the same – the sloganeering must stop. As has always been the case, people’s lives are at stake.”

“In particular we encourage the Government and the Department of Immigration to bring this openness to the complexity of conflict and post-conflict situations to the situation facing Tamils in Sri Lanka and asylum seekers from Afghanistan. One sign of a civilised country is that we do all we can to ensure that people are not being deported to life-threatening situations. Surely if these were our own families we’d want a government erring on the side of caution.”

Rev. Poulos said, “The Uniting Church calls on the Government to take a stand for justice and decency. It is time to show the world that Australia is ready to stop demonising asylum seekers and prepared to do our bit to care for our neighbours in need.”

Mandatory detention is what happens when we fail to recognise, deliberately or out of willful ignorance, the right of people to come to Australia seeking asylum.

Mandatory detention is what happens when we discriminate against asylum seekers based on their mode of arrival.

Mandatory detention is what happens when we think there is some kind of orderly queue that only selfish people ‘jump’.

Mandatory detention is what happens when we fail to engage our capacity to empathise with people. What would you do after years languishing in a horrid camp in Malaysia and Indonesia? What would you do if the nearest UNHCR office was two countries away with your persecutors standing between it and you?

Mandatory detention is the result of politicians playing political point-scoring games with vulnerable human beings.

Mandatory detention is unnecessary and costs an enormous amount of money to implement and administer. Successive Australian Governments have spent billions of dollars on a system that is known by everyone to cause harm and which does not deter people from risking their lives to come here by boat. A fraction of that money could have easily covered the cost of a safe, secure and decent community processing program.

It is to our great shame as a country that we continue to implement policies that cause harm to people.

And for the record, children who are detained in ‘alternative places of detention’ are, for all intents and purposes, in detention. It is a clear breach of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We are a secure and wealthy country. The numbers of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are so small.

How pitifully small and sad are we, when we try to offload so few people onto poverty stricken countries in our region because politicians regard it as a ‘vote-loser’ to process them here on the mainland?

The Government is right to try to engage with countries in our region in a positive and productive way to develop a regional protection framework. The chances of it being a success will rest on whether we are seen to be taking our own moral and legal responsibilities seriously; on whether we are seen to be offering genuine leadership or merely playing to internal domestic politics.

Policies that have been proven to cause harm have no place in the kind of Australia that most of us would hope for. It is time to put an end to them.

a new parliament… a new chance to act on climate change

Today, the Uniting Church in Australia, together with 19 other major civil society organisations released a statement calling on the next Government of Australia to take serious, urgent and credible action to put a price on carbon.

I spoke at a press conference this morning. This was my statement.

The Uniting Church in Australia has long argued that to ensure the future of our planet, we need to take fast and serious action to reduce pollution.

We have witnessed first-hand, the devastation that climate change is already having on our neighbours in the Pacific and throughout the low-lying regions of South-east Asia. Our partner churches and the peoples of the Pacific are calling on Australia, as a wealthy neighbour and as the major polluter in the region, to take responsibility and act to reduce the effects of climate change.

While we all need to do everything we can as individuals, families and groups in community to reduce our own carbon footprint, this action alone is not enough.  The key to making a difference lies with the development of credible government policies designed to shift us to a cleaner, more energy efficient, more sustainable economy.

A price on carbon is not all we need to do, but it is one of the most critical tools.

First and foremost, the Uniting Church believes a price on carbon is necessary because within the context of a market economy, a price will act as a signal of the value we put on the environment for its own sake. The environment is not merely a resource for us to plunder. It is a sacred gift from God and if we don’t treat it as such, we risk the planet and our very own future.

Without a carbon price, there is no signal to industry to clean-up its act and no impetus for shifting to a low-carbon economy. Without a price on carbon our renewable energy industry will fail to grow and thrive, and energy efficiency measures will fail to deliver the big outcomes necessary. Without a price on carbon, we will find ourselves stuck in the dark ages of a carbon-based economy while the rest of the world has moved on.

It is time for us to take control of the market and make it work for us for a change. If we do it properly, the we can use the market as a tool to help us to ensure a healthy and stable planet for our children and our grandchildren.

A price on carbon will generate the funds necessary to drive us away from our reliance on fossil fuels and support the growth of clean and renewable energies.

We also believe that a credible plan would incorporate measures that support low income and other vulnerable households in Australia to ensure affordable access to the energy people need and to cope with other cost of living pressures related to the transition to cleaner energies.  It would incorporate additional development aid to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change and ensure their future prosperity in a low-carbon world.

This is not a matter of party politics. It has been extremely disappointing to see the issues of climate change, one of the greatest moral, social, environmental and economic challenges of our time reduced to such small-target, lowest common denominator politics.

It is also extremely disappointing to see our political leaders retreat to a position of waiting to see what others will do.

Climate change is a moral issue for all of us and as such our response should be driven by what we know is the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to act to protect the planet.

Addressing the challenge of climate change is the greatest challenge our politicians have faced.

We have come together today to call them to rise to the challenge.

It is time for Australian governments at all levels to commit to working with business, industry, environment, community and faith groups for the sake of our planet and all its people. Our future depends on it.