Australia can best be considered as being two separate countries.

One, east and south of the Great Dividing Range, has a good rainfall and a dense population.

North and west is another country, drier, hotter and sparsely populated.

Much of the dry area is fertile and — with irrigation — could support profitable primary industries and a growing population.

But big business, and our political parties, want Australia’s people crammed into big cities in the higher rainfall regions.

* * *

So, irrigation is reduced stepwise, until farmers walk off the land and the townships they support become ghost towns (or tourist centres — much the same thing).

If that doesn’t destroy rural Australia quickly enough, another (even more outrageous) strategy could be to pipe water AWAY FROM the dry parts into higher rainfall regions.

If that notion had been suggested to the Monty Python Show scriptwriters, they’d have shaken their heads saying, “Too bizarre by far . . . there are limits to what even crazy people will watch.”

Anyway, water is, this day, being pumped out of the Goulburn River in Victoria’s drier north and into Melbourne’s Sugarloaf Reservoir in the wetter south . . . .

* * *

Once upon a time, there existed an Australian Country Party which would have protested against this — and at least extracted some concessions.

But that party self-destructed. Under its new “Nationals” name-tag, it became just one more party favouring “free trade” and, with it, rural decline.

The Greens are worse.

They must keep city-dwellers happy — only city-dwellers will swallow environment-worship of the sentimental, almost pantheistic variety the Greens peddle . . . .

Greenies will always find a threatened species of bird or frog or something to declare at risk so as to stop any venture that looks like promoting decentralised manufacturing and/or agricultural industry.

* * *

The environment does deserve consideration, of course — but there needs to be some sort of balance.

Have you ever heard a politician say anything balanced about the water issue?

It may have happened, but a lot of us missed it.

Perhaps our now-famous “independents” might offer a rational approach. Perhaps, also, the DLP.

Time will tell.

Cardinal George Pell, head of the Australian Church, came under fire the other day for calling the Greens Party “anti-Christian”.

“It’s not my role,” he said, “to tell people how to vote, but I would make a couple of points.”

His points included advice to examine the Greens policies on their website and judge for ourselves “how thoroughly anti-Christian they are”.

He mentioned in particular that:

 * the Greens are opposed to religious schools.

 * they led attacks on Canberra’s Calvary Hospital because it wouldn’t provide abortions.

 * they belittle the traditional family as being just one alternative lifestyle among many.

 * they favour “marriage” regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

“For those who value our present way of life” he concluded, “the Greens are sweet camouflaged poison.”

* * * 

Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, yelped, saying, “Greens’ policies for a more compassionate society, a more sharing society, a more dignified society, are the most in line with Christian beliefs.”

One Greens Senate candidate, Lin Hatfield Dodds, once director of a Uniting Church agency, said her party’s policies are “very much aligned with Christian values.”

“I’ve seen the Greens stand up for the environment,” she added, “I’ve seen the Greens stand for a voice for everybody — and they are all core things to the Christian faith.”

They are not. She ought to check the Bible. Although respecting the environment and letting people vote now and then are in line with Christ’s teaching — they are NOT its core.

Obeying the Ten Commandments is closer to the core.

* * *

It might have been more impressive if the Greens had said straight out, “Yes we hate Christians — hypocrites and no-goods as they all are etc.”

We all know that’s what the Greens think.

They themselves become hypocrites by making pretty noises in the hope of scratching up a percentage of the so-called “religious vote”.

* * *

Meanwhile Cardinal Pell was doing his job.

He leads the Church. He has come out and said what the Church stands for in the context of the election.

He deserves no criticism — except in so far as he probably doesn’t do it often enough.

Australia’s Prime Minister is refusing to declare a policy on “climate change”

She is proposing instead a plan to create a 150-member “Citizens’ Assembly” of rank-and-file Australians to decide . . . .

Well not exactly to decide . . . .

Didn’t she also say, “The role of this Citizens’ Assembly will not be to become the final arbiter or judge of consensus, but to provide an indication to the nation of the progress of community consensus etc. etc. ”?

So apart from “assembling” what is this “assembly” supposed to do?

In fact, their role in the government’s plans won’t even include a necessity for them to assemble.

Their function is to be something democratic-sounding to “respectable-ise” the governing party’s determination to perch on the fence about this issue until the election is over.

* * *

The Assembly is to consist of volunteers selected through census data and electoral rolls by “an independent authority”.

Sounds democratic?

Only if you say it fast and don’t think about it.

Especially don’t think back to Mr Rudd’s “2020 Summit”. How democratic was that?

Out of 1000 Summit delegates, just one voted against Australia becoming a Republic.

Nobody could even pretend that only 0.1 percent of ordinary Australians were at that time anti-republic.

That Summit was a scam and a sham – far from democratic.

* * *

Is democracy so important to strive after, anyway?

Doesn’t democracy mean putting the nation’s leader-selection into the hands of a population of TV-watchers – whose decisions merelyreflect what the owners of the media tell them is best.

The media don’t address issues on a rational basis. Their every decision is a commercial decision.

* * *

The Church, on the other hand, could and should think things out on a rational, God-related basis.

Every Sunday, priests address millions of Australians in churches. 

Do they speak on moral issues with a unified voice, based on the Faith, un-influenced by popularity with the media or anybody else?

If they did, the nation would change in a big way and in a hurry.

But at present there is too much division, desire to be “relevant” etc.

So the media is able to pick out a “liberal” priest here and a “conservative” priest there — and to represent the Church’s position as being whatever they choose.

“Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big population,” says our new Prime Minister.

“I don’t support the idea of a big Australia with arbitrary targets of say, a 40 million-strong Australia or a 36 million-strong Australia,” she says. “We need to stop, take a breath and develop policies for a sustainable Australia.”

Why would she say that?

Because that is what voters want to hear — and she desperately needs voters.

* * *

There are good reasons to restrain population growth.

Celebrity businessman Dick Smith, who has plans for a television documentary series recommending slower economic growth “for the sake of the environment”, sees restraining population growth as part of the environment-saving process.

But that is not a very rigorous argument. It begs the question, whose environment? We could promote tourists swimming in tropical rivers as a means to improve the environment for crocodiles.

If what we are talking about is a better environment for humans, then another question is begged. What is a human?

If a human is an eternal soul given a mortal life in which to prepare himself to meet his Maker, then the reason for materialistic restraint becomes a spiritual one.

The “environment” that matters is to provide a worshipful and God-fearing environment for children to grow in and be educated in.

* * *

There are also good reasons for NOT restraining population growth.

Population-reducing policies are likely to include accepting fewer refugees as immigrants on compassionate grounds.

Any policy discouraging compassion is spiritually bad, no matter how economically attractive it may seem.

Population restraint policies seem sure also to take for granted that contraception is a good thing. Which, as true religion has always taught, it is not.

* * *

So the population debate is a good debate to have.

But if we don’t acknowledge that this topic is first and foremost a spiritual one, a religious one — then we’re going to waste our thoughts, words and actions on superficial premisses and come up with wrong answers.

The other day, President Obama got around to conceding that the ongoing under-sea oil leak in the Mexican Gulf is America’s worst environmental disaster ever.

The President has decided to make the BP Company the scapegoat — insisting that the company must “pick up the tab” and “set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of the company’s recklessness.”

Were they reckless?

Had they not been given permission by the relevant government agencies to deep-sea drill offshore?

These agencies — the Minerals Management Service or whatever — may have been the “reckless” ones.

Such a conclusion would not suit the politicians. Government agencies are not cashed-up corporations capable of being milked to pay millions (billions?) of dollars in damages claims.

If the agencies were acknowledged as the ultimate villains, the taxpayer would end up funding the pay-outs.

* * *

What about trying to stop such a leak ever happening again?

The Democrats have imposed a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling.

The Republicans are angry, claiming that the move will prove “job-destroying”.

Of course you could argue against laws banning female circumcision on the grounds of job-destroyingness.  Or any laws banning anything.

Some jobs are not worth preserving.  Some jobs are, in fact, anti-social non-jobs.

Will there be an America-wide and world-wide groundswell of opinion insisting that we start phasing out the use of fossil fuels? Really phasing them out.

Probably not. But there should be.

* * *

In one’s private life one can start personally reducing fossil fuel use.

Grow your own food. There is no earthly reason why a small backyard cannot produce most of the vegetables, eggs and fruit a family needs.

What you cannot grow, either don’t eat it – or at least buy it from local growers.

Barter with your neighbours. Swap and share God’s creatures – compost, mulch, earthworms etc.

Whenever you buy foodstuffs grown in Asia, Britain, South Africa – even interstate – you are an accomplice to the sinful waste of the burning of fossil fuel to transport them.

Victoria’s state government has announced a five-year, $600 million, plan to stimulate growth outside the state capital.

72 percent of Victorians today exist squashed together like clockwork sardines in Melbourne.

The government intends starting things off by relocating 400 government jobs to regional centres (Ballarat, Bendigo and Moe).

Union spokeswoman, Karen Batt, says that career promotions must be offered to get city-based families to move: “All employers know that promotional opportunities drive employee location choices, and this is what we’ll be advocating to government.”

She means well, but she is wrong.

Offering urban-style people urban-style reasons to become non-urban can never work.

* * *

Yes, it’s important to get millions of Australians out of cities and into communities based on the land — not for economic reasons, but for spiritual reasons.

Modern city living is a non-stop inducement to compromises with sin.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in an address on the fiftieth anniversary of his ordination as a priest, said: “I wish that, in these troubled times, in this degenerate urban atmosphere in which we are living, that you return to the land whenever possible. The land is healthy; the land teaches one to know God; the land draws one to God; it calms temperaments, characters, and encourages the children to work.”

As usual, he was right.

See how they live in cities. Living in residences that they do not own. Mothers going out to jobs. So many families with only one or two children. Talking biodiversity, yet living clone-like lives of commuting to office or factory, punctuated by leisure hours glued to electronic screens.

* * *

The Bible tells of the “exodus” of the Children of Israel away from the advanced culture (for those times) of Egypt — to go and live in the desert.

We all remember Moses saying to Pharaoh, “Let my people go.”

Do we remember the full wording of the request?

Moses said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord God of the Hebrews: let my people go TO WORSHIP ME . . . .”

Only for religious reasons will people leave urban, materialistic life — and really persist and persevere in God’s ways.

Otherwise the novelty will wear off and regional towns will revert back into nauseous little mini-Melbournes.