It is common for religion to play a role in Australian election campaigns so the expectation should be that it will do so again. This is despite the fact it is not high on the agenda at the moment, and both the major political parties are now led by non-dogmatic Christians. The latter is a change from the last election when the parties were led by Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, who could be dogmatic and were long-time combatants over matters religious.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
This time the election politics of religion is much more likely to be about issues presented by faith-based pressure groups, church schools and their advocates and other church agencies. There have already been intimations of likely election campaigns, including interventions to release children from offshore detention centres (Catholic Religious Australia), opposition to corporate backing of same sex marriage (Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney), criticism of the treatment of lower-income groups in last week's federal budget (faith-based welfare groups), and advocacy of freedom of speech in the same sex marriage debate (Australian Christian Lobby).
Some of this election campaigning will be the result of nationally co-ordinated campaigns by groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby. It has a history of such involvement in recent campaigns and the resources to engage again.
But there are two down-sides to religiously-based campaigns. The first is that their brand is damaged, especially by the culpability revealed by the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, while the second is disunity on key issues.
Campaign interventions are unlikely to be general support for one party or another but rather sector-by-sector advocacy on particular issues, including welfare and foreign aid, education and same sex marriage.
The major faith-based welfare agencies, Uniting Care, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services Australia and the Salvation Army increasingly speak with one voice. They will undoubtedly put pressure on both parties to commit to greater welfare spending in areas like unemployment benefits and foreign aid and to greater compassion for asylum seekers and refugees.
That makes the churches the voices in the wilderness in these fields. They represent an alternative and more compassionate culture than that represented by the major parties.
Same sex marriage is another issue of concern to the Christian churches, which on balance advocate the no-change conservative position. The conservative groups might target the Greens primarily, but Labor too, as it is committed to a parliamentary vote rather than the government's proposed plebiscite. ACL and like groups will be tested by what to do given Turnbull's pro-same sex marriage position.
Faith-based groups are increasingly evident within the pro-asylum seeker movement and will undoubtedly speak out loudly. Major party bipartisanship for the status quo makes the Greens the major beneficiaries in this sector.
Past studies of the impact of faith-based campaigns show it is prudent not to exaggerate any likely impact given so many variables. But candidates should always be wary of the intensity that faith-based groups, especially conservative ones, can sometimes generate on the right issue. The best the religious left can hope for is to neutralise conservative campaigns by reminding the candidates that many church people are driven by compassion not dogma.
