Tag: Peter Costello

Penny Wong’s Greek Gift


The report that Finance Minister Penny Wong has plans to withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars from the Future Fund is most disturbing. There appears to be no reason for such plans safe to keep intact Labor promise for a surplus budget in 2012. This appears to be wanton and reckless behaviour that tells us our worries that Labor Governments are more fiscally irresponsible are not astray.

When Peter Costello set up the fund, the understanding was that no withdrawal can be made unless actuarial advice is that the liability arising from public sector superannuation obligations would be fully funded. This advice has yet to be given in fact the current advice is that for the 2012 budget, the liability would not be funded.

So why is Penny Wong and her boss the discredited and unwanted Julia Gillard, so hell bent on this course of action? Australians should be up in arms and say to this government to stop messing with our future. First the carbon tax to wreak uncertainty on the economy, now this banditry of a raid on our future fund.

While not every one of us has a direct interest in this fund, undermining the future fund would do serious damage to the government’s sovereign financial rating which would in turn send our country down the Grecian path with similar tragic outcomes. Hands off the future fund!

Related articles

John Hewson and the Modern Leader


I watched Andrew Denton interview John Hewson last night. I wonder how he ever became a politician, let alone the opposition leader with an outside chance of becoming a prime minister. I remember him as the economics professor in my university, occasionally sighting him on campus. He appeared very serious and certainly very ambitious, but the type who would neither stand for rhetoric nor suffer any fools.

The GST was his brainchild. He of course lost the elections to Paul Keating and it wasn’t until the Liberals came to power under John Howard and Peter Costello that the GST came into being – was it in 1995 or 1996. I think few remembered Hewson as the person who brought it about. Sure it was Costello’s push and Howard’s deal making which made it happen but it all started with Hewson.

From the interview, it appears as though Hewson should have been the owner of the moniker “Honest John”, instead of Howard. It was his honest albeit disastrous answer to Mike Willessee’s (forerunner to “A Current Affairs”, even before Jana Wendt) question about whether GST will make a cake more expensive, which buried him. The political naiveté oozing out of that very honest answer was cringe worthy – I can’t imagine any politician going through such an intellectually honest but non media savvy answer but on the other hand I also cannot imagine Tracy Grimshaw asking either Wayne Swan or Joe Hockey a similar question today. Or maybe I can but the response would certainly be more media polished.

Hewson was a workaholic personified. He was working in Hill Samuels, the precursor of Macquarie Bank, while also working in the university. His 18 hour days and 100+ hour weeks saw 2 marriages crumble. Still only 60 years old now and often appearing as a political commentator on Fox, he appears to have mellowed a lot. He has always had that know it all look, creating an arrogant aura about his character, which of course was never going to help his political career, honesty notwithstanding.

What Hewson appeared to have patently lacked was what some of my mates would call “relational skills”. He didn’t seem bothered with what others’ agendas were, only with issues at hand. His objectivity was looked at as callous refusal to consider deal making. Leaders today are expected to engage people, often almost at all costs. If a leader concentrates on substantive issues at the expense of exercising “relational” elements, he or she is often viewed as an ineffectual leader. What this can lead to is leadership which is across opinions and feelings but lacking in substance. Hence we observe an absence of intellectually rigorous and robust policies or statements of values from our leaders today. Truth and objectivity requires time and hard work. Emphasis on “people issues” can come at the expense of neglecting this area. Perhaps the solution lies in knowing exactly what we want from our leaders – people who meet and greet and listen to you often or people who meet and greet issues and decide the right course to take.

Prophetic Word? Danger! Danger!


I have often doubted the modern day prophet, who whips up a sense of “wow” and excitement in a congregation, by their “prophetic word”. They’re often visiting speakers or just some de facto leaders of the wider church community who’d be visiting and given a cameo appearance during which some prophetic word would be dispensed to create a little excitement.
         Maybe they think the service has been a little dull, things have become all too predictable and regular so a prophetic word would be pulled out to add a bit of spice to proceedings.
         In our church, the pattern has taken this form. The “prophet” would call out individuals or small groups of individuals, and say individual 1 would go into some pastoral kind of ministry individual 2 would go into some prayer ministries, and so on. The opus moderandi works for groups too. Thankfully it hasn’t happened too often – I can remember no more than half a dozen occurrences over the past 3 years we’ve been in this church.
         With Nalliah’s spectacular miss, my doubt has been affirmed. Perhaps I can now change my name, unashamedly, to Thomas.
         Following my short and disrespectful previous entry, I received some “track backs” which lead me to some entries in some other blogs. These included the “Catch the Fire” blog.
         Maybe it is to lend credence, or maybe it is simply to maintain the momentum to Nalliah’s stab. Several others’ proclamations of similar “visions” were published. These included a Kenneth Copeland and a Karen Hetherington. They were called “confirmation” or “affirmation”. I’ve heard this principle before. Apparently when 2 or more independent persons heard or saw the same thing it was confirmation that the word was indeed prophetic, the flock can be at peace and be confident that the word would “come to pass”.
         Well, Danny, Kenneth and Karen all saw the same thing. Well they said they did. They said they saw John Howard and Peter Costello there, for the coalition’s 5th term. Rudd apparently came on strong in Karen’s vision but faded away, leaving John and Peter at the helm. Lo and behold – come to pass it spectacularly did not.
         John Howard has most probably lost his own seat and would retire from politics, never again to attract a crowd during his morning walks. Peter Costello looked dejected and demoralised when he gave a press conference yesterday, saying he would not be seeking to inherit leadership of the Liberal Party to lead the opposition. He seemed a little bitter, even. Maybe he genuinely believed the Nalliah mob and now regrets not being more aggressive in seeking to ask Howard to step aside to let him lead the election campaign. Therein lies my biggest reason for viewing these demonstrations of spiritual irresponsibility with anger and contempt.
         I don’t know if these self appointed prophets realise the sort of impact and potential destruction they wreak on the targets/subjects. When you tell someone you had a word from God that that person would undergo some experience or become something or undertake some tasks, how do you think that someone would behave subsequently? Does the behaviour not become affected at all?
         We all get ideas – sometimes they come in the form of visions in our minds. Depending on the company we have been keeping, the books we have been reading, the movies we have been watching, the news item which have been airing on the radio or television or simply on what we have been thinking about, these ideas and images linger and perhaps morph. Perhaps our consumption of stimulants also affects this.
         How can we be so presumptuous that these visions in our minds are necessarily messages from God to be dispensed to the recipients so readily? If I have been thinking about someone in church and I think perhaps that person should think about doing something, surely it is a huge jump – maybe even a whacky one – and highly presumptuous to say what I think is God’s message for that person? That surely is only my opinion. Several others may share that opinion. It is still only an opinion. It may be a commonly shared opinion. It doesn’t become a message from God – a “prophetic word” – just because we shared the opinion and we are all committed Christians.
         See what the Herald Sun newspaper got out of Danny Nalliah early November:
“If you have a party dominated by a secular Left-wing ideology, how could they then accomplish a morally sound agenda, which is Judeo-Christian-based?” Mr Nalliah said. (Herald Sun, 9 November 2007)
         Danny wanted a government which would deliver a “morally sound agenda”. I have no quarrel with that. I want the same thing. I don’t however, make presumptuous conclusions which equate what I want (which is a personal wish) to a prophetic word (which is God’s plan). Admittedly he is most probably a more godly man than me. That still doesn’t qualify his opinion for a prophecy.
         I think these gaffes are borne out a desire to entertain ourselves. Some of us think the gospel as presented in the Bible is perhaps too dull and unexciting we need to somehow spice it up to make it and the church more entertaining. Maybe they think that if you preach the same old message of God’s love and Jesus’ death and resurrection over a period of time it looses its attraction.
         Sprinkle some “prophetic words” however and things get a little more interesting. I mean it’s like the casino isn’t it? I say the little silver ball would fall on number 36 and it did, wow – that’s exciting! I say Joe Blog would have ministry “x” and he did – wow that’s exciting!
         The problem of course is that Joe may alter his life dramatically. And if the basis for this wasn’t God’s word but the opinion of ordinary men wrongly elevated to a “prophetic word” due to some delusions on the part of such ordinary men, it is a highly irresponsible and even reckless behaviour which should be censured. It harms that brother/sister and brings disrepute to the Kingdom of God.

Related Articles