This may seem like trivial FM radio rubbish, and maybe it is, but there's a serious point to be made. In theory (though a pretty far-fetched one) Sandilands could be done for the crime of blasphemy. NSW and Victoria have not abolished the common law offence of blasphemy and Philip Ruddock's religious freedom review reckons it "most likely" continues to exist in those states. The only Australian prosecution of blasphemous libel took place in NSW in 1871, and the offence may have lapsed under the common law doctrine of desuetude. But maybe not. The Ruddock review urged NSW, Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory to abolish blasphemy, but they haven't. Perhaps they'll get around to it eventually. Kyle Sandilands faced calls for his sacking after he questioned the legitimacy of the immaculate conception. Credit:AAP But it's amazing: Sandilands makes one below-the-belt joke about the Virgin Mary and has to flee to Los Angeles and apologise on-air for eight agonising minutes. Try soliciting an apology from any of the "no" campaigners for the hurtful, hateful things they said over and over again to actual, real people during the marriage equality survey. You won't get squat.

Yet the government is on a lengthy listening tour to hear out the church's demands for new religious freedom laws. Last week, with the submissions finalised, we've heard the various grievances of the Catholic Church, the Catholic schools, the Anglicans, Anglican schools, and so on. The synopsis: the government's plans don't go far enough (quelle surprise). Illustration: Reg Lynch Credit: They're quite despondent about the whole situation, too. Melbourne Archbishop Peter Comensoli lamented in his submission: "As fewer members of the community over time profess a religious belief, there is less and less understanding of people of faith. Where in the past there was sufficient trust and goodwill to resolve disagreements on matters involving the intersection of faith and public life, this is dissipating." I can't imagine what might have happened to erode trust and goodwill in the Catholic church. We pay a lot of attention to the desires of religious people. As David Marr has written, Australia may not be an especially devout country but we do respect our religious leaders.

Sometimes it feels like we've spent the past few years listening to nothing but the demands of the church; first on marriage, then when they lost that argument, on everything else. They make you listen, whether you want to or not. I'm happy to listen to faith leaders, especially when they're advocating for people who are not necessarily part of their flock; the impoverished and disadvantaged, the downtrodden, the little guys. But I wonder what would happen if we started listening directly to poor people as much as we do religious people. Social Services Minister Anne Ruston made a telling admission last week – she believes increasing the Newstart allowance would do nothing except "give drug dealers more money and give pubs more money". The comments were reported by the Murray Valley Standard. This is a degree beyond the usual contempt for social security recipients. It reflects an obvious truth – that a lot of people with drug dependency can't hold down a job and do collect welfare – but blithely ignores the fact that about half of the nation's 723,000 Newstart recipients aren't young drug addicts or even drug users, but struggling Australians aged over 45. Representatives of the jobless have recently said senior MPs declined to meet with them. You can't imagine politicians fobbing off an archbishop if he came knocking in Canberra.