One of Howard's "greatest legacies"

New research into the effect of John Howard's firearms restrictions after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 argues that it has saved more than 200 lives each year and hundreds of millions of dollars. It has also cut multiple death shootings in Australia from one every year or two to zero over the last thirteen years.

The restrictions banned certain weapons (semi-automatic rifles and certain shotguns) and involved the compulsory purchase of about 660,000 weapons. It was one of Howard's first major initiatives after being elected and was very divisive at the time. The new research seems to vindicate his position.

I have always thought it was a good move and coming as it did on the cusp of my eligibility to begin voting, it gave me a positive impression of Howard.

Moving on from Howard?

The Hon John Howard MP has spent eleven years as Prime Minister of Australia as leader of the Liberal/National Coalition. In the 2004 federal election, Howard's Coalition won by almost six points in a two-party preferred vote over the ALP. But now, with about six or eight weeks until the election (the date has not yet been set), he trails opposition leader Kevin Rudd by somewhere between fourteen and eighteen points, according to the latest polls. Some polls even predict he could lose his own electorate of Bennelong. With over twelve million people eligible to vote out of Australia's population twenty-one million, that's well over a million people who have changed their preference since 2004.

If you are one of them,* I'm curious: what has been decisive in your change of mind?
*That is, you voted for Howard's Coalition in 2004 (or placed them ahead of the ALP in your House of Representatives (lower house) vote), but if the election were held today, would give your lower house preference to Rudd's ALP. I'm happy for others (who have not changed their mind) to comment, but I'd really like to hear from those who have. You may comment anonymously if you like. However, please observe 1 Peter 2.17.

NB In case you haven't heard, there are new laws regulating enrollment deadlines. If you are over 18 and an Australian citizen, it is compulsory to vote. If you have changed address since the last election, you need to change your enrollment. There is now less time to do either of these than previously and if you don't, you will miss out and may be fined. You can enrol or change your details at the Australian Electoral Commission.
Image of John Howard at the recent APEC conference from Epoch Times.

The gospel: how is it good news? V

Whom do you want in charge?
The gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is God’s king, the Christ. And this is indeed good news.

Even if it weren’t good news, it would still be news. If the one put to death for claiming to be God’s king was raised to life again by God’s power, then he really is king, whether we like it or not. In that sense, the gospel tells us to line up with reality. This is how things are going to be, so get used to it!

But it is good news, because if we think about it, whom do you want to be ultimately in charge? John Howard? Kevin Rudd? George Bush? Hillary Clinton? I doubt it, however much some of us may prefer one or another as less bad than other options.

Perhaps you’d prefer final power to rest with a popular vote? Democracy seems to be a major attempted export of the West at the moment. But is this really what you want? Winston Churchill famously said, ‘Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all those others that have been tried.’ He also said, ‘The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.’

What about you in charge? Every buck stopping with you? Although it might feel nice to dream sometimes, is that what you really want? I doubt it – and I doubt that anyone with a few teaspoonfuls of honesty and a minute of self-reflection would put their hand up for it.

So perhaps it would be best if no-one was in charge? I suspect that would be worst of all - just ask an Iraqi. When there’s no teacher in the classroom, it might seem fun at first, but pretty quickly the bullies take over.

No, in the end, none of these is king: not you, not me, not George Bush, not the bullies. Jesus is king. And that is good news. Because he’s no tyrant. He uses his rule to serve, not to be served. He gives his life to rescue his subjects. His yoke is easy and his burden is light. His kingdom has begun, and even now the humble enter into it. Not all his enemies are yet defeated, but he’s won the decisive victory.
Series so far: I; II; III; IV; V.
Eight points for the name of the flag flying in the picture.

Howard on the end justifying the means

The Hon John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, has recently announced the effective annexation of the Northern Territory by the federal government due to a crisis of widespread child abuse amongst the indigenous population. In his own words:

The level of intervention here is quite dramatic and quite sweeping. We ought not to not mince words, we are in effect supplanting the Northern Territory Government in many of the areas of responsibility.

Others have discussed the timing, motivation and political effect of this move (this is a very sudden and dramatic move on an issue that has been reported for decades), as well as the more important question of whether it will actually help to reduce abuse. These are complex questions on which I have hunches, but little expertise. However, one thing that grabbed my attention while listening to Mr Howard's defence of his actions was his appeal to the logic of the end justifying the means:

Interviewer: This appears to be a blow at any semblance of self-determination.
John Howard: Well, some may see it that way, but is that more important than fixing the problem? I mean, see, this has been the problem with so many of the approaches in the past to indigenous affairs, that doctrines and notions have been given greater prominence than outcomes and solutions.

Later he said:

I don't think you can respect power structures in these communities when clearly those structures have failed to deliver the right outcomes, and you've got to, as in always, you've got to pay on results.

Does the end ever justify the means?
All quotes can be found in this interview on ABC's Lateline.

UPDATE: Thanks to all those who have commented on this very complex issue. A number of the comments have helped clarify my original question. The issue is not so much about the ends justifying the means as the intention of certain (very worthy) ends being used to justify potentially ill-conceived, ineffective or even self-defeating means.

UPDATE #2: It is worth at least reading this summary report from the NT government inquiry. H/T CraigS.

UPDATE #3: My local federal MP, Tanya Plibersek, talks sense on the issue in today's (27th June) SMH. Again, H/T CraigS. She doesn't, however, touch on the issue of empowerment/ownership - bringing local communities on board, which also means listening to their concerns and being willing to negotiate.