Family First- An Analysis (part 1)

In 2004 and 2005 I wrote about the new and Federally untested political party, Family First. Family First, as a party with niche appeal but larger ambitions, instinctively knew that the only path to parliamentary success was to cultivate preference deals with the major parties. The perception among the Conservative parties at the time was that they had natural "fellow travellers" in the shape of Family First. Mutually beneficial deals were struck with them in a majority of seats for an exchange of preferences. Family First were cocky enough of the support they assumed the Coalition would provide to ask their suitors to sign up to a raft of policy positions in exchange for their preferences. Labor, more wary, still felt that a deal with FF had strategic merit in the Victorian Senate contest, assuming that FF would drop out well before other players and that the flow of preferences would deliver Labor an extra seat ahead of the Greens. In a stunning miscalculation, Labor preferences ensured that Family First's Steven Fielding secured the party its first Federal win, despite a primary vote of only 1.77%. Until recently, I would have said that Labor's post-election embarrassment at helping to elect Fielding would have ensured that such a preference deal would never be struck again. However, with Kevin Rudd at now at the helm of the party, perfectly happy to play the religion card if it greases his path to the Lodge, anything is possible. Mark Latham's bile must be rising still.

However Family First protest their political independence, it remains true that they overwhelmingly gave preference to, and received preference from, the Liberal and National parties. Family First did not preference a single Labor candidate anywhere in Australia in 2004 (correction: FF preferenced Labor ahead of the Liberals in the seats of Brisbane and Leichhardt because the candidate Ingrid Tall is a Lesbian and Warren Entsch is in favour of gay marriage). Similarly, their efforts to claim independence from their churchish origins, their founders and sponsors in the Assemblies of God Church movement, were singularly unsuccessful, a subject I have written much on (and at much personal cost). Their progress since 2004 (if any) in establishing a party structure worthy of a mainstream political force will be the subject of part two of this article.

The Coalition, having struck this deal in 2004, should be asking themselves how the deal has panned out. Now Family First have had nearly three years to show their disposition towards the Government, what has their grace and favour have gained them?

An Analysis of Family First's Performance:

This article seeks to present an analysis which will bring some facts to bear on this question. I have analysed all Senate divisions since 2001 to assess the overall behaviour of independent Senators in general, to see if Senator Fielding has been as good a performer as others in similar circumstances. Additionally, I have analysed all the Senate divisions since Family First took their seat to see how they have disposed themselves to the major parties. The source data I have used is freely available at the Parliamentary web site.

It should be admitted that any Senator sitting as an independent or for a micro-party takes on a disproportionate workload, seeing as they must act in some capacity as a spokesperson in every portfolio imaginable, as well as participating in votes and debate in the Senate chamber, and receive delegations from lobby groups, constituents and colleagues.

Senator Steve Fielding took office in July 2005 having been elected in October 2004. From that time until the end of June 2007 there have been 588 divisions in the Senate, divided between the Senate sitting as the full chamber and the Senate in Committee.

In comparison, there were 443 Senate divisions in the preceding four and a half years, between February 2001 and June 2005. This suggests an interesting observation in and of itself: The tempo of senate divisions in the two years of the current parliament is very nearly triple (x 2.98) than that of the preceding four and a half years. This is no doubt a direct reflection of the Coalition's wish to maximise its rare majority in both houses.

Attendance:

The next relevant statistic regards attendance. Since taking office, Senator Steve Fielding has been absent for 148 divisions, yielding an attendance rate of 75%. How does this stack up? Should one could be forgiving of such absences, considering a party with only one sitting member would find it difficult to be in the Senate chamber for every division? Let's look for a reasonable parallel.

There have been four independent senators in recent history to whom we can look for a comparison.

Senator Brian Harradine served as an independant Senator for Tasmania between 1975 and his retirement in 2005.
Analysis of the Parliamentary records between February 2001 and June 2005 showed Senator Harradine was present and voted in 216 of these divisions, or 48% of the time.

One Nation had Senator Len Harris representing them as the party's sole Senator over the same period. He was present for 180 divisions, a relatively disappointing 40% attendance rate. I am among those who supported One Nation for their ideals but became profoundly disenchanted by their lazy, undisciplined approach. This is one reason why.

Senator Shayne Murphy sat as an independent from February 2002 after resigning from the Labor party. While he sat as an independent, there were a total of 377 divisions. Murphy voted in 163, or 43% of the time.

Senator Meg Lees sat as an independent after Feb 2003 after resigning from the Australian Democrats. She formed the unsuccessful Australian Progressive Alliance party and lost her seat in 2005. Over this time there were 339 divisions, and she voted in 233 of them, an average of 69%, making her a diligent legislator in comparison. Lees broke away from the Democrats after concluding they had drifted too far to the left. Her concern seems amply justified, considering the Democrats sided with the ALP in 91% of divisions between 2001-2005 and an astonishing 99.3% of the time (4 votes from 588) since 2005. So much for the "party of balance" the Democrats claimed to be.

Voting Patterns:

It must be remembered that there are many Senate divisions that are of a purely procedural nature and both the major parties vote the same way. This was true a surprising 59% of the time from 2001-2005, but dropped sharply to 32% of the time after 2005.

However, if one excludes these times and only counts the times that Family First voted with one major party and against the other (that is, on votes of substance where the major parties disagreed) then Family First favoured the Opposition 175 times (30% of all votes) as opposed to the Coalition 119 times (20% of all votes).

Even more extraordinarily, Family First voted with the Greens on no fewer than 198 occasions, when both were voting in concert to oppose the Government, a significant 34% of the time. The natural antipathy between Family First and the Greens makes this revelation of more than passing interest.

Family First saw fit to oppose both major parties on 87 occasions, or 15% of the time.

Conclusion:

One could look at the above results in a number of ways.
Firstly, Steve Fielding's attendance in the Senate chamber reflects well on his diligence as a parliamentarian, equalling that of ex-Democrat Meg Lees, and greatly exceeding that of other independent Senators of recent time.

Secondly, Family First have distinguished themselves by not slavishly following the voting pattern of either major party. However, this should cause the Coalition to totally re-assess whether Family First deserve their preferences in the unqualified way they have been dispensed previously. Family First voted with Labour 50% more often than the Coalition when real differences of opinion (not just procedural matters) were at stake. The Coalition should be very cautious about giving Family First any endorsement when they now have a track record like this.

I approached this article with a measure of scepticism concerning Family First's motives and predispositions as a new political party, and I am on the record as being highly critical of them in the past. In assessing their Federal parliamentary performance, I was surprised with what I found. Much was done in 2004 that was badly planned, ineptly executed and caused many Christians a deal of grief because of the way in which the entanglements between Church and State were mishandled, especially in NSW. My concerns in this area remain, but at least Senator Fielding has given a balanced and applied face to the party in the Senate, even if it is at variance with what the Coalition had been led to expect from it.

In the next instalment of my analysis, I will focus on the party structure Family First promised would be constructed at the time of the 2004 Federal Election, and what (if any) progress has been made since. I will ask what evidence there is concerning whose views have been represented by Family First in their voting patterns detailed here, and whether they show signs of growing into a genuinely broad-based political movement.

-Nathan Zamprogno

What does Church/ State Separation really mean?

The Sydney Daily Telegraph June 26th carried an opinion piece from Jim Wallace, the leader of the Australian Christian Lobby. I have personally heard Mr Wallace speak on several occasions and generally support his views. However, on this occasion he invoked what I regard as an incorrect definition of what the separation between the Church and the State really means. The text of the piece is below, followed by my response.

Silent church answers no prayer
By Jim Wallace

"IN my SAS days we used the term "flat, dumb and happy" for people who were not prepared to take a chance. It's derived from military parachuting and refers to those who are effectively freefalling and not making a difference.

Some people would like the church to be "flat, dumb and happy" – it's all right for the church to be there, provided it doesn't influence our lives or the way we are governed.

In the controversy over Cardinal George Pell's comments on the embryonic cloning Bill, this message rang out loud and clear. The over-the-top reaction to Cardinal Pell putting forward the Catholic Church's view was concerning to say the least.

Surely, in a democratic society, Cardinal Pell had the right to reinforce the Catholic Church's teaching with those parliamentarians who have identified themselves with his faith? So too did the Anglicans, the Baptists and other church groups.

One phrase which is bandied about on these occasions is "the separation of church and state". Those seeking to advance the cause of secularism tend to trumpet it as a reason why the church should have nothing to do with politics.

They conveniently forget that this phrase means nothing of the kind. What it means is that the state shouldn't run the church and the church shouldn't run the state. It is meant to guarantee freedom of religion, something which Christians are in hearty agreement with!

The notion that the church should stay out of politics is not only misinformed but would be highly detrimental for society. Who plead the cause of the poor and the needy? Where would the moral voice be to rally against pornography, violence and the undermining of family values?

According to the 2001 ABS Census, nearly 13 million people – or 68 per cent of Australians – declared themselves as Christians. If the clear majority identify with Christian values, isn't it only right that the Christian voice should influence our government and society?

Some people mistake the desire to influence governments with theocracy, where religion rules the nation. Such a concept is not on the Christian agenda.

There are no countries in the world which are Christian theocratic states. There are, however, theocratic Islamic states in which Christians are often persecuted. This is not an example we would want to follow in Australia.

Australia's government and society has benefited much from its Christian heritage. From social services to education, the church has played a vital role.

There are many competing agendas that would love to see the church silenced in an election year – history and commonsense say that wouldn't be for the best."

My response:

The Constitutional Divide that Protects our Democracy.

Jim Wallace is correct in his observation that our political processes are enriched by the religious faith of politicians when it informs their decision making. He implies the doctrine of “the separation of Church and State” is a cudgel only wielded by those seeking to “advance the cause of secularism”. This claim reveals how wrong-headed a lot of religiously motivated forays into politics are, however well motivated they may be.

The doctrine Mr Wallace espouses is most famously enshrined in the constitution of the U.S.A. The drafters of our constitution saw fit to borrow the wording of this section whole when our Federators made their deliberations. The ambiguity Australia inherited about the position of the dividing line between the two sides has become a mixed blessing, if you’ll excuse the pun.

For example, much is made on the fact that the Coalition has doubled funding to private (largely Christian) schools during its tenure. In reality, the Government and the taxpayer get an enormous bargain from this arrangement, since the parents of privately educated students massively subsidise the cost of their education; expenses our public treasuries do not then have to meet. Far from being state sponsored dogma, it’s an arrangement where Parents gain choice and everyone wins.

But for every such fillip, a darker side exists. The political party Family First made every effort to smooth over their Church connections at the last Federal election. However, many instances came to light of Pastors in the Family First fold exhorting their parishioners to support the party as an act of piety. One recorded instance of a Pastor closely linked to a Family First Senate candidate told his congregation prior to the 2004 election that their votes “belonged to God” and that failing to remember that fact would make them “an anger magnet for God”. At other Churches, Family First openly recruited funds and workers. When does such activism cross the line into coercion?

It is in such cases that Mr Wallace completely misses the real concerns people have over the meaning of Church and State separation. The concern is that such disingenuous attempts to inject the Christian message into public discourse do more harm than good. Cardinal Pell, or anyone with an axe to grind on stem-cell research, abortion or euthanasia feel compelled by their convictions to speak up, and good on them. People like Cardinal Pell are indeed entitled to their own opinions; but they’re just not entitled to their own facts. Good politicians make decisions based on facts.

Flipwise, Wallis’s putative “secularists” are not, as he would claim, devoid of moral sensibility, unable to reason out an opposition to violence or pornography.

Mr Wallis fears that for the Church to be “silenced” in important debates would be unwise. Rather, he should exhort Christians to be aware that their method of expressing convictions can backfire, and even damage the integrity of the Church and the political process. Overt or covert religious parties represent too great a temptation to violate the right of Christians to feel their political allegiance is a private matter unrelated to their fellowship. A French word, sadly untranslatable, laïcité, expresses the concept perfectly.

Politically interested Christians should join either of the mainstream parties, where more good can be done than on the fringes of politics. Not so they can then become pawns of a faction, but to be the Salt and Light Jesus exhorted His followers to be.

The distinction between a Christian nation and a secular nation with a majority of Christians may seem fine, but it is an important one; one we are in danger of blurring. The former would indeed be a Theocracy. Although Mr Wallis claim none now exist, History is replete with them. The latter, however, is a proven prescription for prosperity, tolerance and peace.

My Interview on National Television

Author's note: Those interested by this essay will also appreciate the original essay I wrote about Family First that appeared about nine months before this interview was taped. Full details are elsewhere on this same website at THIS LINK.

This is a verbatim transcript of my interview with Jana Wendt, for the Sunday Program. Recorded May 18^th 2005. Sections of this interview were subsequently used in the program broadcast on the 3^rd of July which largely dealt with the HillSong church but also touched on the Family First connections.

JW= Jana Wendt
NZ= Nathan Zamprogno.

JW: Nathan, how long have you been a member of the Church?
NZ: I joined in May 1988, so that would be seventeen years.
JW: What does the Church mean to you?
NZ: The Church gives me an avenue to express my faith as a Christian. We believe that, as Christians, your fellowship with other believers is an important part of how you express your Christianity; with other believers. I grew up in that church. I found my wife in that church, now I'm raising my family in that church.
JW: And why particularly Assemblies of God? What does it have to offer?
NZ: I've never gone "church shopping". I've always grown up in the one church. For me, I like its relevance to people. It isn't "old and dusty", it's contemporary, it meets people where they're at, it does excellent work in the community, and it has a vision that I support.
JW: And can you conceive of your life outside of that church?
NZ: Only in the sense that I can't conceive of life outside of being a Christian. I mean, there are other churches, but I strongly believe that God has placed me in my church, and I'm not going anywhere unless I feel called elsewhere.
JW: In the lead up to the last Federal election, it was said that Family First, despite claims to the contrary, was directly linked to the Assemblies of God. Was that true?
NZ: Family First have admittedly had their genesis in the Assemblies of God church, and are trying hard, I hope, to disentangle themselves from that genesis. There were associations, and things that occurred in the church, that gave me cause for concern, yes.
JW: What kinds of things?
NZ: Well for example, the fact that on the one hand Family First were so keen to deny that there were any links whatsoever, and yet it was patently obvious that they were drawing the majority of their candidature, their support, their financing from Assemblies of God, or church-related networks; not formally, but informally.
JW: Do you know if there was any "from the pulpit" support in AOG churches for Family First candidates?
NZ: The thing that gave me the most concern I suppose was that there was always this patina of "we can't tell you how to vote", but that was always followed by actions that were contrary to that statement. So that, ministers of religion, indeed, Pastors of Churches were standing as the candidate, drawing in parishioners with no interest in politics, even church staff to stand as dummy candidates in other seats to bolster the campaign of another person.
JW: Why do you say "dummy candidates"?
NZ: Because Family First said in their own press releases that "the majority of their candidates were local"[1], and yet there were ten people from my own church, including five paid staff who were standing in seats as far away as Cessnock and Bathurst and how had absolutely nothing to do with the areas they were purportedly seeking to represent.[2]

JW: So what was the purpose of standing dummy candidates?

NZ: The Party was up front about it. They said "we want to stand as many lower house candidates as we can to support the campaign of our Senate candidates, which is where we have our only real chance."[3]

JW: So you're saying they stood those candidates in order to successfully play the "preference trading game"?

NZ: Yes, and in as much as they were up front about it, that was above board. I just didn't think it was ethical to do so.

JW: So you're saying that there was support from within Assemblies of God Churches for Family First candidates?

NZ: I think that the church was profoundly double minded about this, and I think there were misgivings at a number of levels. On the one hand, there was a genuine desire to keep themselves at arms length, and to convey that message to people that "we can't tell you how to vote". But if it was followed by "preferential airtime" for a particular party, or allowing parties like Family First to "take the service" for 15 minutes for the purpose of getting supporters, booth workers, membership, fundraising... You couldn't sustain the claim that the Church was keeping itself at arms length[4] when those kinds of things were happening.

JW: And you know that this happened in assemblies of God churches, that Family First candidates were given preferential treatment?

NZ: I can't[5] say that it happened in my church, I've heard of instances of it happening in other churches

JW: And why do you believe that Family First was so intent on claiming that there was no connection whatsoever?

NZ: Because they wanted to find a broader base for their appeal. If they were seen as a solely church-based party then they would only have the same demographic as the Christian Democrats. I think it's an attempt to try and establish themselves as a mainstream party. So far, they haven't done a very good job of it.

JW: But one of the Senate candidates went so far as to say that suggesting there was a connection was very close to slander, I think were his words?

NZ: I know, and this is an example of the double-mindedness that I found troubling; that they would be so keen to deny the church connection that they actually stepped over a line and brought scorn upon themselves.[6]

JW: What in essence is your problem with this? Family First has family values which presumably reflect the beliefs of The AOG. Why shouldn't there be a connection?

NZ: Because there is a question of "Church and State" that people have largely forgotten about. The Australian Constitution has an "Establishment Clause" (concerning an "official Church") just like the American Constitution does[7], but beyond that Australia has inherited a lot of historical ambiguities in terms of the relationship between Church and State; whether it was State Aid for religious schools in the 1960's, or the growing role of "faith-based" organizations in the provision of welfare and employment services[8]. It's an open ended question and debate will go on into perpetuity. It's a question of spiritual headship. In the Church we make a personal investment in our ministers, and they deserve a degree of qualified deference in terms of the fact that God has put them there. But as soon as they wander in to the political sphere, they need to understand that it's "fair game", and they can't take this mantle of spiritual headship in to the political sphere. Unfortunately, they haven't made that distinction.

JW: But what in essence is wrong with it, if the political party supports the position of the Church itself. Why shouldn't it go out there?

NZ: Because people that go to those churches and hold a different political flavour end up feeling uncomfortable. If they vote left of centre for example there's a danger that people will think less of their Christianity.

JW: Did that happen to your knowledge? Within the Church?

NZ: I believe it has.

JW: So people who were not inclined to vote for Family First were made to think less of a Christian?

NZ: There was probably no intent for people to feel that way. I'm not saying that anybody looked down their nose at those people, but they would have to ask questions about whether it was still "their church", when the church was taking such an overtly political stand, and at one end of the political spectrum. I can't agree with that.[9]

JW: Do you think that members of the church in the lead up to the election felt pressured in some way to vote for Family First?

NZ: I think that the preferential airtime...

JW: When you say "preferential airtime" that is speaking to...

NZ: Speaking to congregations and soforth. I mean, church newsletters that were circulated to every pastor in New South Wales[10] and Queensland[11], that I'm aware of, specifically pushed Family First and the fact that Assemblies of God people were standing as candidates in aid of their candidature. I think that creates a sense of obligation that people shouldn't have upon them.

JW: So if you were a member of an AOG church before the last election, you would have had the strong impression that your church was supporting Family First.

NZ: That would have varied depending on the individual church and how they handled that particular issue. I'm sure it varied from church to church. I'm sure that in some churches you would have felt rather uncomfortable that you were being goaded in a certain direction.

JW: You are taking this step of speaking out on this issue. You are clearly a loyal, devoted member of your church, but you feel strongly about it. Do you think there may be repercussions for you in this?

NZ: Definitely. I mean, I hope not. It won't make life any easier for me!

JW: How do you think it's going to make it difficult?

NZ: I'm not going to answer that one.[12]

JW: Has your feeling about this altered the way you think about your own church?

NZ: It does put your faith in a crucible, and it forces you to think about why you support your church, or why you support your leaders. But my faith as a Christian is rock solid. It's crystallised some things for me, but I'm not going anywhere as a result of it.

JW: And have you spoken to your fellow members of the church about your concerns, about your churches entry into politics?

NZ: I've spoken publicly about my point of view on a website that I maintain. But beyond that it's not my intention to stir dissent because that would be disloyal.

JW: Do you have a feeling that other members of your congregation, other members of the AOG, have similar concerns?

NZ: Yes. Definitely.

JW: Because you've spoken to people with similar concerns?

NZ: Because people have approached me saying "I agree with what you've said. I'm glad it's your neck on the block and not mine."[13] We'll see if any change results.

JW: And is there any potential damage to the church in this involvement?

NZ: Yes! I believe the integrity of the political process and the integrity of the church are both damaged when the entanglements between church and politics become too enmeshed. There needs to be a greater attempt at keeping them at arm's reach. If Family First can leave the orbit of the church where they found their genesis, they can achieve that. They've either got a bright future or they're heading for oblivion over precisely that issue.

JW: How sophisticated a party do you think Family First is today?

NZ: Well resourced, well funded, well organised, still just starting out. That's why I say they've either got a bright future of are heading for oblivion: The churches, the charismatic churches are very well organised. They're very... corporate.

JW: Do you think that the AOG realise that there is a downside to this kind of political involvement?

NZ: I think that in the fallout from the last election there's had to have been some soul-searching, but how that manifests itself we will only see in future elections[14], State and Federal.

JW: And why shouldn't AOG churches be patting themselves on the back, after all, they have a new Senator?

NZ: They do, and rather unexpectedly. They won that success and they're entitled to any degree of self-congratulation they want.

JW: If you look at the coming political term, how do you think Family First will conduct itself in the parliament?

NZ: They will vote overwhelmingly with the Government, being a conservatively aligned party. They'll stick their head up and they'll get some airtime by articulating certain issues through their prism, which is "we put families first". That's to be expected.

JW: Do you think they are being taken seriously by the Government?

NZ: In the sense that they are fellow travellers on the conservative end of politics, I think they're being seen more as an ally than a threat.

JW: And what do you think is the possible value of the "family impact statements"?

NZ: It's just another lens, another prism through which you can see all government policy. If we can look at all policies for the impact that they could potentially have on families then that's a good thing.

JW: Do you think that for the Prime Minister to have agreed to family impact statements that he was making a significant concession or not?

NZ: No, I think he was merely being very pragmatic and a very canny politician.



(interview break)



JW: What is it that worried you about this attempted public separation between the AOG and the political scene?

NZ: The claim that the church is keeping itself at arms length from the political process cannot be plausibly sustained when you have somebody who is a Pastor, preaching from their pulpit on one Sunday, and then putting on another hat and saying that they are a Family First candidate for the Senate the next day, and then going out and saying that suggestions of connections between the party and the Church amounts to slander... That's so transparently ridiculous it brings both the Church and the political process into disrepute.

JW: And that is in fact what happened in some cases?

NZ: Oh yes, definitely. In Queensland.[15]



JW: You want more Christians in politics?

NZ: I would love all Christians of conviction to join a political party because the Gospel is a call to social action as well as a message of salvation. I'd rather see them though outwork their faith in a mainstream political party of their choosing, rather than be drawn off into the fringes of politics and into a party that has no constitution, no branch structure and big impediments to popular appeal.

JW: That's a very pragmatic call that you're making, isn't it?

NZ: Yes, I suppose so.

JW: And that's what needs to be done. Can you encapsulate what it is the AOG Churches believe in?

NZ: The AOG is a mainstream, Protestant church. We believe Jesus is our Lord and Saviour, and we believe those other mainstream trappings of the old and new testament. I suppose what we add to that it a contemporary relevance. We have to meet people in the culture that they're at. We also believe that if you live your life according to the model of Jesus then you will live a satisfied, fulfilled, maximised life as well.

JW: And where do the AOG churches stand on issues like Creationism?[16]

NZ: The AOG is full of closet Creationists, but Family First would be very unwise to let that cat out of the bag.

JW: But in terms of the AOG's beliefs, many of them would believe in Creationism.

NZ: Certainly, and unfortunately.

JW: So that's not something that you believe in?

NZ: No.

JW: But when you say that the AOG is part of the mainstream, that is what we would call a fundamentalist belief, is it not?

NZ: The word "fundamentalist" has had a number of unfortunate labels attached to it. I mean, in it's purest sense it means you believe in "the fundamentals" of the Bible. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're a "crazy", or that it's a cult or anything like that.

JW: But one of the "fundamentals" of the Bible was that the Earth was created in seven days.

NZ: People would argue that point (laughter)... Look, I would argue that point!

JW: I suppose what I'm trying to establish is that there's a substantial body of belief inside the AOG that would hold to the theory of Creationism.

NZ: Yes.



JW: Is there such a thing as the "Religious Right" in this country?

NZ: No, and I don't know that it would be a good thing if there were. People say that if you want to know where Australia is going to be in ten years then look at where America is now. The religious right certainly has a vice-like grip on the conservative end of politics in the United States. What's ironic is that despite the fact the religious right has such a grip in the American psyche and American politics, the kind of proselytising Family First have attempted to do in many churches would actually be illegal in America.

JW: Why is that the case?

NZ: Because there's a clause in their tax code that says that Churches have to abstain from any political involvement to maintain their tax exempt status.[17]

JW: And you'd like to see that kind of law established here?

NZ: I didn't say that! But it's a debate that I think Australia needs to have.

JW: So do you think that Australia is headed the American way as far as religious influence on politics is concerned?

NZ: The influence will only increase, yes.

JW: And that's a bad thing?

NZ: No, I would like moral people and Christian people to be involved in the political process. I just don't want that to be manipulated by the Church.



The interview proper ended here.

These are Jana's remarks made after the interview proper and during incidental footage:

You've stood for local government and obviously you have a strong involvement in the social fabric of the place and very pronounced views. You're not afraid to put your money where your mouth is, because as you say, the repercussions may not be all that comfortable. Although, I can't imagine an organisation, that is, a Christian organisation that has the values that you admire could be so narrow as to not be able to deal with such measured criticism. I mean, you've staked out your ground very carefully. I think it would be very disappointing if there were consequences for you that were other than... mild.

---

[1] http://www.familyfirst.org.au/mr/greens-ffp060904.pdf and http://www.familyfirst.org.au/mr/4thmajparty140904.pdf

[2] As recounted in my original blog article, http://baliset.blogspot.com/2004/10/family-first-one-christians-view.html and widely commented on, including http://dogfightatbankstown.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/between_a_rock_.html (which was greatly encouraging)

[3] http://www.familyfirst.org.au/mr/pollvffp150904.pdf

[4] In other words, despite some people having the genuine intention of not have the church be seen to be in a position of seeking to influence votes among their congregation, such behaviour made it impossible, in practice, for such a promise to be kept.

[5] I should have said "I won't say it happened in my Church" instead of "I can't".

[6] I am aware that John Lewis, the Queensland Senate candidate this refers to, has since resigned his pastoral position to pursue his political ambition. This is a principled move that other intimately church-connected candidates should heed. However, the move is too late to undo the perception of hypocrisy that was created and perhaps even acts as confirmation that those concerns were real and damaging- a fact few Family First identities would admit publicly, but which I am informed are been frankly aired since the election by AOG leaders in Queensland and elsewhere.

[7] Chapter five, section 116. The wording of the Australian "establishment clause" mirrors closely the equivalent one in the U.S Constitution, and deliberately so. A small example of our founding fathers seeing an idea and a form of words that worked and borrowing it.

[8] And of course the infamous schism in the 1950's that caused the DLP to split from the mainstream ALP along religious rather than ideological lines. An excellent anniversary analysis of this episode in history appeared on ABC radio national's Perspectives program, and three 5 minute vignettes can be found at

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1369600.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1373389.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1380350.htm

[9] So again, why isn't this a case of "the lady doth protest too much"? (Hamlet, act 3) It's because of the fact that, as much as I might agree or even benefit from the co-opting of Christianity as an essentially right leaning belief system, and that it might seem superficially good for right-politics, it is in fact an unwholesome influence on the integrity of the Church. Actually, it's not much good for politics either. The most vigorous democracies in recent Western history are those instituted along areligious lines but populated by men and women with a firm moral, and indeed, Christian, compass. This is a long way from the kind of influence certain religious activists would like to wield on our political processes. I've got more to write on this subject, but it deserves it's own piece.

[10] http://www.pnc.com.au/~jwcs/Michael_Murphy.pdf

[11] http://www.aogq.com.au/data/images/newsletters/stateconnections_july2004.pdf

[12] As Jana says after the interview: I find it difficult to believe that criticism that is so measured will be misconstrued. I replied ‘You find it difficult to believe. I don't.’

[13] See http://www.signposts.org.au/index.php/archives/2004/09/21/putting-the-family-first#comment-3403 for a small example

[14] There's little evidence of such soul searching in my own neck of the Woods. Questions I have posed on this matter since the election have brought spittle embellished denials of any downside. That's a story for another time...

[15] http://www.familyfirst.org.au/mr/undemocraticlabelling300904.pdf

[16] http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/christian_doctrines/gendoct_15_creationism.cfm

[17] http://www.au.org/pdf/religiousleaderletter.pdf or http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_churchelectioneering

- Nathan Zamprogno

A lazy Compass fails to circumscribe Family First

Regular visitors to this blog will be aware of my views on the interface between Church and State. Personal friends will sympathise with my plight because of my abilty to complicate my life by choosing to air those views publicly.

Since my interest is in the debate about Church/State separation, I should take pains to point out that the Family First party is by no means my special or implicit target.

I just thought I'd throw up this temporary post about the "documentary" (or "advertorial" as I'd choose to express it) that screened tonight on the ABC's Compass program about Family First (transcript not yet available at that link but probably soon) by way of foreshadowing a more detailed treatment over the coming days.

Any stakeholders out there with an interest in what I might choose to say should call me now (and yes, I know you're reading this). The mistake I made previously was in putting opinions in the public domain without giving the protagonists I was critical of the chance of discussing it with me first.

There will be more to say on this, that much is sure.

Family First- One Christian's View

Author's note:
Those interested by this essay will also appreciate my TV interview with Jana Wendt on the same subject where I expand on these issues (given about nine months after the events depicted here). Full details are elsewhere on this same website at THIS LINK.

This essay was written by me prior to the Australian Federal election in October 2004. I subsequently removed it, not because the facts were wrong or because I had changed my opinion, but as a courtesy to people whom I respected, and who had claimed that I had prematurely expressed opinions without fairly giving them a chance to put their side of the story to me. I assumed my gesture would be a precursor to a proper debate on the matter. I was wrong. I have re-posted my original article as of July 4 2005 directly as a consequence of their deliberate refusal to even as much as broach the subject. If my heartfelt invitation had been accepted, this and further comment on this website would not be here.

Part One: Why Does This Matter

Part Two: How Family First Handles the Media

Part Three: Legal and Ethical Concerns

Part One: Why does this matter?

Voltaire said "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

For the benefit of the wider audience: I am a member of 16 years standing in the Assemblies of God Church. The people in question are all men and women whom I love, look up to, or grew up with. I ascribe to them the teachings that are responsible for the strength of my marriage, the depth of my personal faith in Jesus, and my conviction that we are called to make a difference in the world around us.

So why would I write what (an unfortunate few) will characterise as an attack on my Church?

Well, the answer is that it isn't an attack on my Church at all. Family First is a self-confessed secular political party who claim no spiritual authority over anyone. The principles that would rightly restrain me from launching an unconscionable attack on my leaders as Pastors do not apply when they are seeking advantage in the marketplace of political ideas. I happen to support a different political party. The miracle of Australian democracy is that I can do so and, hopefully, remain friends with those with whom I differ in opinion. If Family First are indeed the secular political party that they claim, then their policies (which I support), and their methods (which I don't) are fair game.

So, allow me to make this distinction, and ask you to do the same. I love my Pastors and I love my Church. I just think that they don't make very good politicians, and nor should they try, if it results (as it has) in a denial of Jesus Christ and draws the mockery of non-Christians.

Differences of opinion in the Church (and not just our Church) are far more likely to be seen as "undermining the vision" or "not fully committed to partnering" or being "unteachable". Such people then get short shrift and sometimes the welcome mat is withdrawn. The problem, of course is that this may be true! I'm absolutely committed to my Church. Hawkesbury Church is my home and, believe me, I've had to defend it in my home more than you have in yours, mate. People can and frequently have said unkind things about the Church with the sole intent of bellyaching. So how do we bring a legitimate grievance to our leadership without being branded persona non grata?

Well, the first and most important thing is for us to each watch our own attitudes. Trust me, I've been royally p**** at a dozen different things over the years but, each and every time, I center myself and apply the desideratum "A bad attitude means that the possibility I'm feeling what I am because God wants me to change it is probably zero." There are plenty of times where I've stopped myself from doing things (like writing letters to bonehead Creationists. There, I've exposed my secret vice), because a moment of reflection causes me to realise that my motives were wrong. They were personal, and not based on a conviction that my actions were a) helpful and b) directed by the Spirit.

The Second thing is to get your facts straight. I was happy enough to see Family First as "Mostly Harmless" in the Douglas Adams sense, until Pastor Ian Woods mentioned the flurry of media attention the party had received over the last week in the papers. I read the article(s) he pointed out in last Saturday's Herald, and did some digging of my own. My view has changed.

My Dander is now Officially Up. Those who know me well will testify my Dander is not to be trifled with. (I might add that this would sound more dignified if I hadn't looked up the dictionary and found that "dander" is basically bird dandruff. This shows that the people that coin these phrases ought to be more careful)

I am writing as a concerned citizen and as a concerned Christian, in equal measure. Don't take an argument I'm making about a self-confessed secular political party with views on strange subjects that simply won't work and turn it into an attack on my commitment to Jesus or to our Church. Nor should you accuse me of secretly supporting the Greens. I'm not that stupid.

Part Two: How Family First Handles the Media:

a) In Queensland:
Ronald Reagan wasn't a President well known for his command of detail. "The Great Communicator" was, however a master of winning a crowd over. In 1980, running for the Presidency for the first time, he attended a huge charismatic Christian gathering. Here was a constituency that would be valuable if he could win it over. National Church leaders were careful to explain their dilemma to the aspirant before he took the stage. "You understand," they explained, "we aren't political. We can't be seen to endorse one political party over another. It just isn't proper." These leaders had previously given tacit endorsement to Jimmy Carter in 1976, only to be disappointed by his Presidency. Reagan mused. "Fine." he said and approached the podium. "I know you can't endorse me, but I want you to know that I endorse you." The quote launched the Christian Conservative movement as a political force in the U.S.

It's a shame that the operators behind the Family First party haven't shown as much wisdom in handling the obvious connections between their party and the Church. This matter would have merely been picky if it weren't for the fact that both the party and the Church are coming in for escalating, withering criticism (like The Chaser Decides on the ABC last night with their mock news headline "Family First party denies Jesus Christ three time before cock crows"). It made me feel embarrassed.

The Family First website has issued several press releases in the last week or two to clarify the issues. The first one made this claim:

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION: The (Family First) party is not a church party or an Assembly of God party, nor is it funded by AOG churches."

The second one that was released yesterday was even more emphatic:

"Recent media reports have labelled Family First Party a "Christian party" and, in some cases, an offshoot of mainstream Christian church, Assemblies of God. Lead Queensland Senate candidate, John Lewis, said that the labelling of the party bordered on slander."

Read that twice. The Family First party are so angry about being associated with the Assemblies of God that, in the view of Queensland Senate candidate John Lewis, it amounts to slander.

Now read this July release from the desk of Wayne Alcorn, president of the Queensland Assemblies of God:

"FAMILY FIRST

By now you would be aware that Pastor John Lewis will be standing for the Senate at the next Federal election... As ministers of the Gospel, we must have a genuine sense of responsibility as we watch our social fabric deteriorate. We all need to handle political issues wisely, and though we have no right to tell our people how to vote, I urge you to:

1. Call your people to pray leading up to this next election.
2. Be aware of what each candidate stands for. Where necessary, meet with them prior to the election.
3. Encourage your people to vote for men and women who will stand for righteous values &endash; not just play some party line."

Proof that the Queensland Churches "got the message" about who they should support is indicated by a story that appeared in an article in the Sunshine Coast Daily on 26 Sept:

"Parishioner upset at mix of politics and religion: 'Get politics out of my church'.
That was the call by a disgruntled Nambour parishioner yesterday after a campaigner for a political party interrupted a Pentecostal church service to appeal for financial donations and volunteers.

The parishioner, who declined to be named, said he was angered when a volunteer for the fledgling Family First party was allowed to make a 15 minute political advertisement mid way through a recent Nambour Assembly of God service."

In conclusion:

Family First denies that it is not funded by AOG members, and yet complaints of soliciting campaign funding and support through Churches are reported in the papers.

A Family First candidate responds angrily to the mere suggestion that they are associated with the Assemblies of God, accusing those who do so of slander. Meanwhile, the State President offers fulsome praise of exactly the same man (and obviously with his approval), thinly disguised by the non-disclaimer that "of course, we don't tell anyone how to vote." Hypocrisy!

b) In New South Wales:

In New South Wales, the Family First party has come in for a deal of media scrutiny about the same connections between itself and the Church. A SMH report on the 25th of Sept (website link, or PDF) contains this quote:

'Joan Woods, from the Family First party and wife of the president of the Assemblies of God church in NSW, is adamant: there's "absolutely no connection" between the two organisations. Church and state are absolutely separate, says the party's lead NSW Senate candidate. There is no funding link between the two, indeed no formal link at all. "Not in any file, in any legally written document, in [the party] constitution," she says, a little indignantly.'

If this isthe case, then this email from Michael Murphy, deputy President of the NSW Executive may be a little hard to explain. Fully in the public domain, this letter was circulated to every Pastor of an AOG Church in NSW. Extract:

"Dear Pastor, As you are probably aware, God is doing a unique thing right now …I need to inform you of our latest such opportunity that Joan Woods, our own President's wife, has just accepted. Joan has been asked to represent the Family First Party as their Federal Senate Candidate for NSW. Whenever one of our own takes such a stand, I think we have a responsibility on a number of fronts.

1. Pray 2. Support - wherever possible."

You will recall that Ian Woods made an emphatic statement from the pulpit that the "Assemblies of God is not a political movement. We are a movement, but not a political one. We do not support any particular party." If such an email had come directly from the State President of the AOG, such an email would have been wholly improper. Is it any less improper if it is sent by his deputy?

c) Nationally:

The Sydney Morning Herald front page story on September 21 (website link, PDF), "So God said: go to NSW and create poll mayhem" contains the following quote:

"Pastor Brian Houston, the national president of the Assemblies of God church, said several people from the church supported Family First. 'But as far as I am aware there is no instruction on how Assemblies of God is to vote,' Pastor Houston said."

Please! I can picture Pastor Brian with furrowed brow, scuffing the ground with the toe of his shoe. "Family First, Family First... hmmm. I don't know. I feel I should know that from somewhere, but... nup, nuthin to do with us! "

Meanwhile, will Joan Woods or other Family First candidates attend services at one or more of the Hillsong campuses this Sunday to be "presented" to the congregation, only one week from polling day? Watch this space, based on one rumour passed on. One wonders how many other political parties will receive such a boost from Brian Houston?

Part Three: Legal and Ethical Concerns

All Federal Elections in Australia are governed by the Commonwealth Electoral act of 1912. Several sections deal with situations where improper influence or a lack of full independence on the part of a candidate can result in a conflict of interest. The Australian Electoral Commission has a primer on such matters at its website. Section 326 of the Act, says (in part):

A person shall not, with the intention of influencing or affecting… any candidature of another person; or any support of… a candidate… or a political party by another person… give or confer…, any property or benefit of any kind to that other person or to a third person.
Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

It is also true that It is also true that of the 23 candidates that are standing in lower house seats in NSW, fully 10 are from the Hawkesbury Church. Five are paid staff at Hawkesbury Church. These are:

• Jon Dorhauer standing in Greenway (Riverstone),
• Carolyn Dorhauer standing in Robertson (Gosford),
• Cat Cannone standing in Watson (Hurstville),
• Michael Woods, standing in Hunter (Cessnok),
• Melanie Woods standing in Calare (Bathurst)
  

A small but noteworthy point is that several fail to disclose their association with Hawkesbury Church in their candidate information forms lodged with the AEC. The others are members of the Church who have never expressed political aspirations before.

Unfortunately, perusing this list of candidates also reveals another embarrassing fact. Here we have over ten political aspirants engaging in the political process. Absolutely none of them come from the electorates they are seeking to represent. I would wager that none of them could give a list of the six most pressing issues that dwell on the minds of people living in those electorates, nor would any be willing to move themselves and their families to those electorates in the event they won the seat.

The reason this is embarrassing is because Family First had previously made a virtue of the fact that the "overwhelming majority of its candidates are local". For example, look at two press releases from the Family First website:

"Monday, 6th September 2004 - Senate Battle is really between Greens and Family First "
"...Standing over 100 House of Rep. candidates - The vast majority of candidates are local "

and again in a second press release a week later:

"Tuesday, 14th September 2004 - Family First Now Fourth Major Party "
"The Family First Party on debut in the Federal Election will have 126 candidates across the nation, with the majority living in the electorate they are standing for. "

Hawkesbury Church and the NSW Senate Lead Candidate are offering up 10 candidates (plus a handful who are affiliated with Hawkesbury Church). What's their track record on local representation? Zero.

I could forgive those good people in Bathurst, or Hurstville, or Cessnok from being a little bit cynical about the representation they are being offered, let alone in Greenway where the Liberal candidate (Louise Marcus) is an AOG employee (via an external welfare agency), and yet the Family First candidate, AOG Pastor John Dorhauer is being gagged from pushing anything except the party line "No, we don't have anything to do with the AOG." Louise Marcus is tipped to win the seat from Labor by a wafer thin margin, largely through Family First preferences.

Although I support the efforts of Christians to aspire to elected office (and have myself done so on several occasions), the paramount concern is that candidates do so within the boundaries of the law. Beyond the legal requirements, I would also say that candidates who profess a Christian faith ought to also stand in an ethical manner, and not rely on subterfuge and denial in an attempt to gain a wider constituency. All candidates who stand for elected office in any sphere are charged with a solemn responsibility to be legitimate and sincere in seeking to represent the citizens of that electorate. Standing candidates for other purposes is misleading and, in the words of Aquinas, "Leads the truth of our faith to become a matter of ridicule among the infidels." Well put.

In reality, standing these lower house candidates is really to aid the Family First campaign in the Senate. Joan Woods has been candid about this, stating to SMH journalist Mike Seccombe (Website link, PDF):

'Mrs Woods concedes that almost all the Family First candidates are AOG adherents. She concedes many of them have only been in politics for a few weeks and many don't even live in the seats they are standing for. "We're just a young party," she says. "I have to use what I've got in my hand in terms of my network, and those that relate to me. See, what I needed to do was field as many candidates as I could in the lower house..."

The reason is, while the lower house candidates have little chance of election, the party needed their 'bulk' to become a player in the preference-swapping game, and increase Mrs Woods' chances of winning the Senate seat.'

Of Course. Nor should we blame Joan Woods for the strategy, because it was the way Family First conducted their campaign in South Australia and got Andrew Evans elected. The Family First press release "15th September - The Polls vs Family First" explains the party's success in the South Australian parliament, despite not

"fielding a full complement of lower house candidates to support the upper house candidates." but then going on to state "At this election we will have a full complement of candidates in Tas, Qld, SA and Vic, as well as a large number of seats in NSW and WA."

This is further proof that the lower house candidates are there to support a Senate campaign. I'm not denying that this practice isn't common. Many minor parties do it, and at all levels of government. I'm merely suggesting that the practice is fairly cynical one and insults the citizens of those electorates where they stand- especially if the candidates have no affinity or connection with those communities.

Family First went with their cap in hand to the other parties recently to say "Hey, we got over 4% of the vote in our only electoral showing to date (in S.A) and you should sign here (website link, PDF) to a) support our policies and b) give us a good preference deal." Indeed, Family First claim "some candidates have been asked to sign a three-year voting agreement on certain Family First policy platforms before preferences are included in any deal." Here's the irony: With so many candidates having little or no connection to their electorates, that figure of "over 100 lower house candidates" is actually a whole lot less impressive that it first looks. Most of those candidates will be likely to get maybe a few dozen votes. Not exactly an earth-shaking influence. The other parties may well have been duped by the overstatement of Family First's influence. Should Christians seek political advantage in this way?

This leads me back to the Electoral Act. Legal precedent regarding section 326 interestingly includes feelings of "created feelings of gratitude or obligation" in their definition of "benefit". So, in that context, let's ask these questions:

1) Have any candidacies been influenced in contravention to the spirit of section 326?

Consider: Strong and proven encouragement of the State AOG executives for others to assist in the promotion of Family First candidates. The fact that ten members (and five employees) of one Church who have never expressed political aspirations before are now standing in various seats for which they have neither residency nor affinity.

2) Would any of these candidates have otherwise stood for election in their chosen seats, except for the fact that they were doing so at the behest of their employer, and because of the substantial links and expectation that all AOG employees/members will "do their duty"?

3) Did all candidates pay for their candidacy fees from their own pockets?

I would suggest that the answer to these questions do not rely on whether they "chose" to stand in line with their democratic right to participate in the parliamentary process. I am sure that all will claim that their candidacies were voluntary and lawful. As indeed they were! My question is: Are such actions ethical?

- Nathan Zamprogno