The Australian Labor Party used to be more or less anti-poker machines.

John Cain, Labor Premier of Victoria in the 1980s, refused to permit them.

But it was Joan Kirner, a Labor Premier succeeding him, who introduced them.

About that time something very nasty happened to the Labor Party . . . .

Current Victorian Premier, Mr Brumby, is no better.

His moves to modify the gambling industry have all been strictly cosmetic.

Nothing has happened that will reduce losses by gamblers.

* * *

In Tasmania it is exactly the same.

The Tasmanian Labor government enjoys a deep and meaningful friendship with Federal Hotels, and has arranged for them to have a monopoly contract at least until 2018.

How interesting, then, that anti-pokies candidate, Andrew Wilkie — running as an independent in the Tasmanian seat of Denison — has just beaten off the Labor candidate and won the seat.

Mr Wilkie has publicly promised that his aim is to make Tasmania “pokies-free”. 

The latest research in Tasmanian shows that one in every two voters knows personally somebody who is a gambling addict.  No wonder the people of Denison were glad to have Andrew Wilkie there to vote for.

Mr Wilkie said yesterday, “$95 million has been lost just on poker machines, just in Tasmania, just in the last five months . . . There’s something like 100,000 problem gamblers in Australia, problem gamblers on poker machines, costing the community something like $5 billion a year . . . .

“If I can get into the House of Representatives, and with Nick Xenophon in the Senate, I think we have an unprecedented opportunity to energise the public debate about poker machines, and bring about some genuine reform nationally,”

                                                                                                * * *                                                       

Yes, the poker machine problem is the same Australia-wide.

Where are the anti-pokies candidates that so many of us want to support?

Will there be a few in the November 27 election in Victoria?

Let’s hope so – and let’s hope they get elected.

Especially in Mildura, which has been picked out by the gambling fraternity as a good source of suckers to bleed white, while fattening the leeches of the big end of town.

This blog recently recommended readers to consider voting DLP. * 

Many people did. Throw in a bit of apparent good luck with preferences — and it happened.

Now John Madigan is a Senator-elect.

What is the Democratic Labor Party all about?

* * *

(1) History

Those interested in Labor Party history know that a good case can be made for considering the DLP the genuine continuing Australian Labor Party.

The present so-called ALP being a (big) splinter-group that split off and took over through a series of dirty deeds at, and following, the party’s 1955 National Conference in Hobart.

On that occasion, a number of anti-Communist ALP members, mainly Catholics, were expelled from the party in a manner contrary to the ALP constitution.

The DLP was formed by those excluded — with policies of anti-Communism, more government funding for Catholic schools, increased defence spending, non-recognition of Communist China etc.

At its peak, the DLP got as many as 11 percent of the primary Senate vote.

But by the late 70s, the DLP hardly existed.

Recently there has been a come-back. Last Saturday the DLP obtained between 2 and 3 percent of the primary vote in Victoria.

* * *

(2) Policies

The DLP is a pro-family party. It supports the freedom of families to decide their own pattern of early care of children and of the education they receive. This means freedom from financial punishment against stay-at-home full-time mums – and against those sending children to non-government schools, or home-schooling.

The DLP opposes abortion and euthanasia.

As the name suggests, the DLP advocates actual democracy – as opposed to today’s fake pseudo-democracy. This includes the setting up of a “Citizens Initiated Referendum” system, applying to all levels of government (federal, state and local).

The DLP supports re-establishing a Federal Development Bank, diversifying and resurrecting our export industries, encouraging import-replacing industries, building new dams for secure water supply and flood control etc.

Read more at their website at: www.dlp.org.au/index.php?page=alias

* * *

Don’t these sound like more sensible policies than those of the big two (or big three) parties?

(* See: www.marymackillop.org/a-spectre-is-haunting-australia-the-spectre-of-the-greens-party)

Jesus Christ was a person of compassion.

Today’s gospel reading in Catholic churches, describes this:

Entering a certain town, Jesus met ten men who were lepers, who, raising their voices, said: “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” He saw them and said: “Go, show yourselves to the priests.”

It came to pass that, as they went, they were made clean. One of them, on seeing that he was made clean, went back, glorifying God with a loud voice. He fell on his face at Jesus’s feet, giving thanks. This man was a Samaritan.

Jesus said, “Were not ten made clean?  Where are the other nine?  Has nobody but this foreigner returned to praise God?” And he said to him, “Stand up and go. Your faith has saved you.”

* * *

Everything about God is beyond our understanding — including his compassion.

Why did Jesus heal these ten?

Weren’t there lepers in every town he visited? He could have — if, in fact, he was God.

Why doesn’t God, at this moment, evaporate the water killing people in Pakistan?

We don’t know.

Compassion doesn’t mean giving everybody what they want, that’s for sure.

There is a greater good to which an event must contribute, in order for God to make it, or permit it, to happen.

That’s why Greens Party representative, Adam Bandt, now MP-elect for the seat of Melbourne, should stop using the word “compassion”

* * *

Last night, Mr Bandt claimed that the Greens stand for “a compassionate and helping hand to people who are in trouble . . . more love in this world, not less.”

All rather sickening. His party has no love or compassion whatever for the unborn babies whom the Greens would have aborted for any reason or none.

* * *

Politics brings out the worst in a community. Election time is the season for telling lies and displaying the reverse of compassion — lust for power and perks.

As always, it is up to the Church to witness to God’s love and compassion – also to his commandments and his judgement – if Australia is to be a decent place to live.

Nobody else will be doing it

In June 2010, New South Wales MP, Clover Moore, introduced a bill to legalise adoption by homosexual couples.

One adoption agency, Anglicare, threatens to withdraw its adoption services if such laws are introduced – and has written to MPs urging them to vote against the bill.

Anglicare’s chief executive, Peter Kell, says adoption is not a “gay rights” issue — but must be based, first and foremost, on the interests of the child.

“Men and women complement each other, and the optimal care for children really consists of being in a family with both a mother and a father” he said.

* * *

Now NSW Cabinet looks like “exempting” both Anglicare and Catholic Agency, Centacare, from the legislation.

Community Services Minister, Linda Burney, says Cabinet will discuss amending the bill to allow these agencies to refuse involvement in adoptions by homosexual couples

She said, “I think the exemption is sensible, and I think it’s important that it’s there.”

* * *

The word “exemption” is, of course, very out of place in this debate.

The child’s interests come first.

Those seeking to protect helpless children from inappropriate placement are not seeking an “exemption” for themselves . . . .

No, they are seeking to assert the rights of the child – and the rights of God.

The State has no business trampling on those rights

Governments who disregard this understanding must be defied, disobeyed and undermined.

* * *

Adults’ perceived “rights” must never trump those of the child. 

Discrimination isn’t always bad.

In the context of adoption, discriminating in favour of traditional married couples is good.

Yesterday in California, a federal judge overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In November 2008 a referendum in California known as Proposition 8 voted, by a 52 percent majority, to ban such marriages.

Judge Walker now rules that Proposition 8 “does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples . . . Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians . . . the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

* * *

Judge Walker seems aware that his wishes have no hope, ultimately, of succeeding.

He has granted a temporary stay of his order until Friday, allowing opponents of same-sex marriage time to file appeals which will obstruct — more or less indefinitely — resumption of same-sex marriages in California.

Appeals could drag on for years.

This whole episode may well be a storm in a teacup.

* * *

California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger welcomed the ruling as “a milestone in America’s road to equality”.

Others say that, far from moving towards equality, it’s just another reminder of how some people are more equal than others.

If you believe in traditional marriage, your opinion isn’t equal enough to count for anything whatever – even if more than half the electorate agrees with you.

* * *

 . . . but none of the above analysis addresses the most basic questions.

Do most of those opposing same sex-marriages have any idea of what marriage is?

If God exists, can a marriage be valid that is carried out in a way disobedient to him?

Must not marriages outside a church be suspect?

Marriages in non-Catholic churches – can they be pleasing to God?

Marriages in Catholic churches between couples currently living together in sin — what about them?

Likewise, what about marriages in which contraceptive practices are employed?

What tiny, minimalist, percentage of heterosexual so-called marriages are marriages in an objective sense?

* * *

Of course, only God knows the intentions in the hearts of those involved.

It is not for us to try to do his job.

The Day of Judgment soon comes.

Each of us must look to the saving of his own individual soul.

Nauru is a nation with no means of support. No industries, nothing for tourists to look at, precious little arable land . . . .

Its unemployment rate is 90 percent.

When Australia closed its asylum-seeker detention centre in Nauru in 2007, one of the main sources of paid work disappeared — 10 percent of the nation’s people being directly or indirectly affected.

Nauru is keen to help out again if Australia wants to re-establish such a centre.

* * *

It was promising, the other day, to hear Prime Minister Gillard refer to “my plans for a regional processing centre” and “the dialogue with Nauru.”

But it was a slip of the tongue.

The rest of the time, she rejects any suggestion of using Nauru.

She says this is because Nauru hasn’t signed the United Nations refugees convention.

But that may not be her reason.

About the asylum-seekers, opposition leader Tony Abbott says, “If the Prime Minister is serious about taking tough action, she would pick up the phone to the president of Nauru.”

* * *

Meanwhile more asylum-seekers keep turning up thick and fast — another 80-odd picked up off Christmas Island two days ago.

Australia is obliged to keep helping Nauru to survive one way or another.

We stripped off most of their topsoil getting the phosphate out — leaving it like a moonscape of naked limestone pinnacles.

Waste-products from our mining killed most of the edible fish in the waters around the island.

Nauru already functions as an Australian colony. They use the Australian dollar. Australian Rules Football is their main sport. They depend on Australia for treasury advice and imported Australian health and education expertise.

* * *

It’s hard to realise how helpless and un-viable Nauru is.

And how tiny.

3000 Naurus could fit on the island of Tasmania.

So why did J. Gillard’s tongue slip into saying we’ll negotiate a new detention centre with Nauru?

Because she knows it’s the right thing to do.

For our own benefit.

For the benefit of the nation of Nauru.

And — if it is done properly – for the benefit of the immigrants.