John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to give some insight into a recent overseas study tour that I undertook. I looked at the very vexed issue of faith in politics. Of course, one would say that one can hardly find a more difficult issue because, no matter what one says, one is neither right nor wrong. It depends on where people come from when they are looking at what one says. I went to gather information so as to inform myself—and hopefully inform this parliament and awaken a debate. I note that this is already a topical debate within our community. I want to see what sort of accommodation may be made in this very vexed issue.

I went to Washington and London. I met with faith groups, academics, commentators and think tanks. I must acknowledge the role the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade played in setting up a wide range of appointments for me. If one reads the report that I have submitted to the Special Minister of State, then one will see that it is quite comprehensive.

I am going to quote from my report. It cites the views that were expressed to me in no particular order and not necessarily verbatim. I do not attribute those comments but merely report what has been said to me. Then, at the end, there are some conclusions. Given the limited time I have today—because it would take me a lot longer than 15 minutes to comprehensively go through my report, and there are attachments to my report—I intend to quote and cite some of the statements that were made to me during that visit.

In the United States, for example—and that is addressed in the first part of my report—obviously the system is different to ours but, nonetheless, it is interesting to hear how faith is playing a role in politics in the United States. At paragraph 1.01 I say:

The exit polls of 2004 showed that moral values played a significant part in the outcome with 80% of these people voting for Bush.

This led people on the left to claim that they had moral values too.

This was a conflicting message from the left who say that you can’t impose moral values on the one hand, but, on the other hand, we have moral values and one can’t bring them to bear in politics.

It is legitimate to bring moral values to bear in politics.

That is a controversial statement that was made to me, and the first of a number of them. At paragraph 1.04 in my report I quote:

Values are playing a significant role in who will be elected. The political parties have not caught on to this yet.

That was more about both of the political parties in the United States, not any one in particular. At 1.05 in my report I say:

The Judeo-Christian ethic is the basis of Western democracy.

That theme was repeated to me by a number of the people that I met with. But at 1.07 in my report I refer to a study that was presented to me by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. I state:

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has undertaken a significant examination of the role of religion in modem American politics. Its report, Religion & Public Life A Faith-Based Partisan Divide, contributes greatly to the debate.

I will read a couple of excerpts from that report. On the subject of the church attendance gap it reads:

By far the most powerful new reality at the intersection of religion and politics is this: Americans who regularly attend worship services and hold traditional religious views increasingly vote Republican, while those who are less connected to religious institutions and more secular in their outlook tend to vote Democrat.

The report also says:

The most important cause of this new church attendance gap is the mix of social and cultural issues that have come to the fore in the modem era. The so-called moral issues—prayer in school, abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage—have tended to push the religiously observant into one political corner and the more secular into the other.

I will leave off there. Anyone who wants the full copy of that particular research done by the Pew forum will find it attached to my full report. Returning to my report, at 1.08, from comments made to me, I note:

As a result of the push of libertarian and secular views and values in the 1960s and 70s, the traditional Christians seemed to have withdrawn to a fair degree from the mainstream political arena. With changing leadership, and observing that they needed to participate in the political agenda, many Christians (mainstream and evangelical) have re-entered the political arena to reclaim the political agenda.

At 1.09 I note:

Government advisors and bureaucrats misunderstand religion.

At 1.11 I note that the following comment was made to me:

Bush had a real impact on political discourse by incorporating evangelical/Catholic language into his speeches whereas Democrats don’t feel comfortable using ‘religious speak’.

At 1.14 I note:

There are both libertarian and social conservative members of the GOP but for party purposes they are very disciplined and pragmatic on the views expressed.

At 1.18 I note:

Political parties don’t really want to choose between secularists and evangelical voters in an election. But, if forced to do so, then they will choose to woo the evangelicals as they are better organised and more likely to deliver when sensitive social issues are at stake.

At 1.19 I make an attribution to the National Association of Evangelicals. My report says:

The National Association of Evangelicals was founded in 1942 and today covers some 54 denominations with some 45,000 churches associated with the denominations.

The National Association of Evangelicals put a number of points to me. They said that they:

• have endorsed a broadening of their political agenda to include climate change and the environment, global hunger, debt relief HIV AIDS
• say they are legitimising these issues as moral and spiritual issues
• claim to be not dictating the debate, but merely changing the nature of the debate
• say that the cutting issue for them was—who can manage the country best
• say that the old style ‘religious right’ or the Moral Majority had not been good for American politics.

They go on to say:

Many evangelicals perceive the Democrats as being anti-religion. The issue of same sex marriage, which they oppose, is an important one for them. Hillary Clinton is reaching out to the broader electorate by seeking to moderate what has been perceived as her hard line stance on abortion. They see themselves most importantly as being committed to a set of principles and not any particular political party. They are quite prepared to build alliances and/or coalitions with Islamic and Catholic faiths to advance their agenda politically.

At 1.20 I note that the following comment was made to me:

The Democrats appear to be much more secular than the Republicans and are either publicly hostile to religion or at best indifferent. Some say there is ‘tone deafness’ to religious concerns. The Democrats are now seeking to change this perception.

At 1.22 I note:

Americans don’t want a politician with a “hot line” to God but they don’t mind if he/she believes in a God and this helps to form their views.

At 1.24 I note:

Sometimes politicians are discriminated against because they are Christians whereas the views of any other faith are respected.

At 1.28 I note that a person made the following comment to me:

There is no liberal intellectual tradition similar to the Judeo-Christian tradition that has been at the centre of the development of Western Democracy.

They went on to say:

Left wing intellectualism is fairly spent. It would be good if both political parties held the same appeal to those who hold to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Last but not least, at 1.32 I note:

The US Constitution and Court challenges taken to interpret the Constitution have served to shape the political agenda causing conservative people who make up the majority in the community to gravitate to the Republican Party. People have had enough. The Democrats feel isolated and are now asking the question ‘how do we talk about religion’ in an effort to get back into the political race.

So there were some controversial comments made to me in the United States. I turn to the United Kingdom. In paragraph 2.2 of my report, I report that it was said to me:

All the political parties were anxious with the emergence at the last election of the Christian Peoples’ Alliance Party. It was felt that this party may well damage the mainstream political party’s vote. This proved not to be the case with little impact being felt, if any, from this new party.

At 2.3 I say:

Churches are having a greater influence in local politics than in national politics. Christians are participating more to reclaim some of the ground lost as a result of their withdrawal from the political debate in the ‘60s and ‘70s. They are participating not as an organised force or unit, but simply as a result of the need to fulfil their obligations to society.

At 2.4 I cite:

Evangelicals together with the Islamists and other mainline churches are forming coalitions on issues to make their voices heard in the political debate. This is seen as a way of acting responsibly within the democratic structures.

At 2.9 I say:

There is a role for religion in the modern state but this is contrary to the secularist’s view who want to exclude religious institutions participating in the state.

Someone else then said to me, as I note at 2.11:

Secularists are as narrow in many ways as those that they oppose.

At 2.14 I say:

The evangelical churches are growing and the issues of concern include:

gay marriage

freedom to preach the gospel

life beginning issues including cloning

euthanasia

reclassification of drugs, e.g. downgrading cannabis

They see a complete crumbling of our society and a need to intervene to stop the rot.

At 2.15 I note that it was stated to me:

The concept of the family has been destroyed.

At 2.19 I say:

The Government does not know how to relate to the faith community. It tends to treat them as a fruit puree rather than as individual fruit. Governments need to engage with faith groups but not simply on their own terms. They need to grasp the nettle on life and moral issues or they will be found lacking by reinvigorated faith groups.

I then report at 2.23 and 2.24 on a unique project that is operated by the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and the organisation CARE. These organisations offer internships, on a non-partisan political basis, to people with a Christian background so that they get an understanding of politics. At 2.25 I report on the conference I attended and the speech that was made by the then Home Secretary, the Rt Hon. Charles Clarke. I also recommend that to people. I then go on to outline a number of other issues that were drawn to my attention, and I recommend those.

I put down a number of conclusions based on the comments that were made to me. Those conclusions are not necessarily anything other than my perspective on what was said to me. The conclusions go to the heart of what is in my report, and I recommend the report to people if they want to see the thinking of the people in that part of the debate. I do not claim to have canvassed the whole of the debate, because it was too broad to canvass in the short time that was available to me, but undoubtedly the report will serve as a basis for people to have a stimulating discussion and debate on the issue.