31st October, 2005

The following a speech given by the Federal Opposition leader, KIM BEAZLEY, at the Australian Christian Lobby's national conference this weekend...

Today I want to talk about values in public life, and the role that personal faith plays in underpinning those values.

I want to speak to you as Labor Party leader. But I also want to speak as a Christian who has thought about these issues during twenty five years in public life, and in the years before then, growing up the son of a politician.

I was asked on radio this week why, after 25 years, I was still going in parliamentary life. Why was I still getting out of bed, facing the press conferences, the polls, an apparently dominant Government and leading a team that has been in Opposition for a decade?

PICTURE: Tanya Hargreaves, Fine Line Design. "If you do believe in God, as I do, then surely there can’t be any thing that’s ultimately more important than a person’s faith. "And public figures who exploit religion for their own political ends risk doing something much worse than just playing politics. "They risk hindering the faith of people who have differing views."

My answer is this: my values give me a sense of duty.

I believe in fairness. I believe in decency. I believe in respect for yourself and for each other.

And I believe in fighting to enshrine these values in public policy.

That’s why I regard the issues I’m dealing with today - to defend the rights of working people - as the fight of my parliamentary life.

My values tell me it’s not right for governments to make laws that make it harder for Dad to be at the dinner table.

It’s not right to make it harder for Mum to take the kids to cricket training.

When a government puts the demands of the market ahead of the lives of families, it undermines society.

That society becomes a market. It loses its values.

And that’s why this current debate is about more than industrial relations.

This debate is a referendum on Australia’s values.

Do we choose to be only a market? Where no aspect of family life is safe from the intrusion of secular materialist values?

Or are we a society - a community that has values, that believes the purpose of a healthy economy is to improve the quality of our lives?

For me, the political life is an honour, and a duty. It is influenced by my broader faith.

Throughout my political career I have been cautious in speaking publicly about my own faith. Today I want to explain why.

You might expect a politician to say that the greatest danger when religion and politics mix is that politicians might impose their personal values on the rest of the community.

I understand this concern. But in political life, we’re always debating values.

As the industrial relations debate shows, values issues are a constant part of political debate. But my main concern in political life has always been different.

If you do believe in God, as I do, then surely there can’t be any thing that’s ultimately more important than a person’s faith.

And public figures who exploit religion for their own political ends risk doing something much worse than just playing politics.

They risk hindering the faith of people who have differing views.

When a particular political party or viewpoint becomes a litmus test for a person’s faith, it forces people into a false choice between their political convictions and their religious faith.

I saw this happen as a boy. I recall my Dad’s heartache as he watched it. The rancorous split between Labor and the DLP in the ‘50s drove many away from their faith.

Many people of faith who believed in Labor’s cause of social justice were told by priests and politicians that membership of the Labor Party wasn’t compatible with their faith.

They should never have been forced to make this false choice.

It makes me think of Jesus’ words in Luke 17: "Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come! It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble.”

One person who did stumble on his faith was Don Willesee, the Foreign Minister in the Whitlam Government. It was an honour to be at his funeral a couple of years ago. The words of his son Mike have rung in my ears since.

Mike spoke of the tragedy of his father being driven away from his faith because of his family’s experiences of the bitterly divisive aftermath of the Labor split. In the last years of his life, Don was restored to his faith, partly through his son’s own return to his faith. That meant so much to Mike.

But like many people in that area, Don’s spiritual life suffered greatly because of that sectarian period in Australian politics.

I wish this sort of manipulation of religion in politics was in the past, but the same thing is happening now in the United States.

Christian faith has become so closely identified with a particular brand of right-wing politics, that for many people, when they reject the harsh politics of gun ownership, militant foreign policy and religious intolerance, they think they must also reject Christian faith.

They are not the same thing.

I do not believe than any partisan position or viewpoint should ever become a litmus test for a person’s faith.

It’s a very serious thing when you say that people of a particular faith must support a particular political viewpoint.

For any politician who uses religion in their political life, the words of Jesus in Luke 17 should cause them to stop and think.

No politician should consciously allow their politics to become an obstacle between another person and their experience of the cross of Christ.

It’s this concern that’s stopped me from making an issue of my personal faith in my public career.

But I think it’s right for me today to make some remarks that I have not in the past.

For a long time, many people in public life have strictly avoided discussing values and faith, to observe the traditional separation of church and state.

I’ve come to the view that this approach just isn’t tenable any more - for two reasons.

First, because in the post-September 11 age, when religion is at the centre of public fears of terrorism, we must be able to challenge the ugly, violent distortions of genuine faith.

And we must be able to talk openly about what faith really brings to the vast majority of believers: hope.

And a sense of values that binds together our families and our community.

Second, because we still have the opportunity in Australia to avoid the divisive, partisan exploitation of religious faith that has entered American political debate.

So how can faith shape values in public life? And what values underpin what Labor stands for?

First, faith shapes personal character. Our faith demands that we are people of integrity and that our personal lives and relationships reflect the values we uphold in public.

It is a check on the arrogance and pride that comes with power.

Faith can play a central role in shaping the desire for public office. It provides perhaps the deepest motivation to contribute to a better society and overcome injustices.

It’s a little known fact that the history of Labor and progressive politics is deeply connected to people of faith. People who fought for justice and whose faith taught them there were some values they should never compromise.

This week saw the passing away of Rosa Parks, the modest African-American seamstress from Alabama whose sense of dignity and self-respect as a child of God changed the course of history in America fifty years ago. Her faith compelled her to say no to the entrenched racism of southern America. Her simple faithfulness sparked the movement that ultimately ended the horror of segregation.

Just think of the history of others who, like Rosa Parks, transformed their societies by living out their strong faith-based values:

• William Wilberforce’s tireless campaign against slavery in late 18th century Britain;

• Lord Shaftesbury, a man born into privilege but converted through a maid, and who devoted his life to alleviating the social injustices of the Industrial Revolution;

• William and Catherine Booth, whose ministry to the poor and destitute through the Salvation Army is still growing more than 125 years after it began;

• Dietrich Boenhoeffer, the leader of the confessing church in Nazi Germany, who stood against Hitler and paid for it with his life;

• Martin Luther King who led the civil rights movement that emerged from Rosa Parks’ act of courage - a movement that gave African Americans the freedoms that whites had enjoyed for centuries;

• Desmond Tutu, whose steady, unswerving resistance to apartheid helped bring about the miracle of a peaceful end to that horrific oppression;

• The central role that church groups have played in mobilising action to address global poverty through the Jubilee 2000 and Make Poverty History campaigns.

People of deep spiritual conviction were instrumental in founding the Labour Party in Britain. Keir Hardie was a Scot who grew up in poverty. He became his family’s main breadwinner from the age of 8. He was working down in the Lanarkshire pits from the age of 11. He knew hardships few of us will ever know.

Yet he was energised by an evangelical faith and values that stirred his passion for political life. In time, he became the first Labour member of the British parliament, and its leader. He fought unceasingly for causes that reflected his strongly held values - including voting rights for women, an end to colonial rule in India and racial equality in South Africa.

And the union that Keir Hardie created also spawned a young man named Andrew Fisher, who would later become the first Labor Prime Minister in Australia to lead a majority Government. Like Hardie, Fisher’s faith shaped his commitment to lasting social reforms, like the age pension and compensation for injured workers.

For a Labor believer like me, these are the saints of our history. Men and women of conviction and faith. Who never accepted the view that faith is a purely private affair - but whose faith dictated they stand up for those who were on the margins.

Standing up for those whom the Old Testament prophets so often spoke of - the “widows, the orphans and the strangers”.

Such people are still among us. And we are called to stand with them.

The ones who are most vulnerable. The people on the margins. The neglected ones. The ones forgotten by a society that worships material success, youth and celebrity.

The Howard Government is strong on spin but weak on substance. John Howard certainly does talk about family values a lot. But let me ask you this. Are good family values reflected in the way his government runs our immigration system?

Look at the treatment of a family of five detainees who were transported from Maribyrnong in Melbourne to Baxter Detention Centre in South Australia. This family had to be transported from one detention centre to another.

The private operator put them in the back of a van with no light, no air conditioning, no food, no water and no access to medication as they drove through the desert.

That family spent six and a half hours in the back of that van. When they asked, what if we need to go to the toilet? They were told, you go where you sit.

And we know this is not an isolated case.

A government that was serious about family values would tear up the contract with the operator that did that.

A secular philosophy will tell you that these people don’t deserve to be defended - that they just get what they deserve.

That’s been the constant undertone of this Government’s handling of immigration matters.

It’s morally wrong.

If you believe that we’re all created in the image of God - the doctrine of ‘imago dei’ - you take very seriously the issues that affect the people most vulnerable in our world. You don’t dismiss them with just a wave of the hand.

That same value informs the way you deal with many other issues of national responsibility. Like working together with other nations to make poverty history.

Providing decent aged care and ensuring dignity for the elderly. Ensuring universal access to health care. The opportunity of a first rate education for all children. Integrity in our immigration system.

Of course a belief in these values is never exclusive to people of a particular faith.

As a person of faith in politics, I believe the policies I advocate must be formed inclusively, so that they unite rather than divide the community.

There are values which I hold, but which I believe are matters of conscience - matters where the state should not intervene.

There are other values that should always be reflected in the conduct of governments.

I know that many of you feel that last year the relationship between Federal Labor and the Christian community got out of balance.

One of the ways we’re addressing this is through the Faith and Values working group in the Labor caucus. Kevin Rudd is doing good work with this group, and I know he has been speaking to many of you about these issues. We see this group having an ongoing role in strengthening our dialogue with faith communities.

I know that nothing is more important to you than policies that support families in our community.

There is much that governments can do to strengthen marriages and families.

Often this debate focuses on symbolic issues like the question of civil unions. On that issue, you will be familiar with last year’s debate.

Labor made it clear that we regard marriage as something fundamental in our society.

We supported legislation that confirmed the Marriage Act of 1961 which said “marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others”.

This protects the special status of marriage. And that won’t change.

We do remain committed to an audit of other Commonwealth laws to identify and remove other forms of discrimination.

But debates on issues like this are often marginal to the real pressures that families face every day in our society. This is where governments can take practical measures to strengthen families.

I’ve mentioned my fears for the impact on the family of the Howard Government’s extreme industrial relations changes.

I believe that after nine long years in government, our opponents have become out of touch with the real challenges facing Australian families.

Take another practical example - the intrusive calls of telemarketers that often disrupt families at the dinner table.

Labor has stepped up our plan for a national ‘Do Not Call’ register. Under this plan, if you put your name on the list, companies are not allowed to make unsolicited calls - and they would get fined if they do.

Then consider violence on television. I am concerned about this.

Research suggests that by the time an average child finishes primary school, he or she will have seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television.

In the face of facts like that, as a parent you just wonder what can be done to protect the impressionable minds of children.

In the end governments can’t legislate for everything. We need parents to take responsibility, and we need corporate citizenship and social responsibility.

In the United States, television manufacturers and broadcasters are working together to develop technology like the ‘V-chip’ that gives parents more control over what their kids watch on television.

Of course parents would need to take advantage of this technology. In the end there’s no substitute for parental responsibility.

That’s also true of the problem of internet pornography.

A survey done by the Australian Broadcasting Authority found that nine out of ten parents reported a specific incident where their child had accessed something inappropriate on the Internet. Two in five children said they had accidentally found a website their parents would prefer them not to see, with one in five saying this had occurred more than once. That same survey found that almost two thirds of parents don’t have Internet filters on their home computers.

Companies and parents doing the right thing is the most important step.

But I’m pushing practical measures for government to help. Earlier this year I called for tax rebates to help families meet the cost of internet filtering software.

My colleague Anthony Byrne has been working on proposals to ensure public libraries use filtering software on their computer terminals as well. And over time, and when the technology is available, internet service providers should give parents the option of internet services which are pornography free.

I know you also have some other specific concerns and I want to address a couple of those today.

As you know, Labor has had a consistent view over many years that racial and religious vilification should not be allowed in the Australian community.

And we also know that the right to free speech has to be protected.

Many of you have told me of your concerns that some of the current laws around Australia get the balance wrong. We’re all familiar with the Victorian case where civil action was taken against preachers from Catch the Fire ministries and I know this is of particular concern to you.

I want to tell you today that Labor will propose national laws on incitement to violence on racial and religious grounds to focus on behaviour which crosses the line between active debate and encouraging violence.

Under Labor’s proposal, legitimate, peaceful evangelism will always be protected, but incitement to violence, such as what was contained in those Islamic hate books to cause so much concern earlier this year in Sydney, would not be allowed.

What’s more, ours would be a criminal, rather than a civil, regime. That means it’s essentially up to the public prosecutor to decide whether to take action in a particular case. It’s not up to individuals in the community.

That’s less divisive - not setting community against community - and it also means you’re not going to get frivolous or irresponsible claims against legitimate church activity.

I think it’s a sensible approach and I hope the Howard Government will take it up.

One of the greatest lessons of the long history of people of faith in political life is not a lesson about politics, but about personal character.

Many of these reformers were up against the odds. Many laboured faithfully for years and years without results. Some paid the highest price. All made immense personal sacrifice.

But each bore the mark of character - a sense of vocation, a dogged perseverance and faithfulness to that vocation, and an enduring hope for the cause of social reform.

They brought something that’s sorely needed in our political process now - hope. A hope that can triumph over cynicism and despair.

I don’t think for a moment that such a sense of hope belongs uniquely to people of faith. But I can say from a quarter of a century of experience that such hope characterises many Christians.

Let me give you one example from my electorate in the last few days. We had a terrible road accident involving a bus full of kids from Mandurah Baptist College. There were 27 kids aged about 10 to 12 years old in the bus. After colliding with a car and a truck the bus reportedly rolled four times. Yet all but one student escaped critical injuries.

I went to the school and it was a remarkable experience. They really felt that it was a miracle that their children survived and with so few injuries.

What I found so remarkable was there was no blaming, no threats to sue the school, no signs of anger or despair from the parents. Instead, warmth, a sense of caring for each other, and hope. A community rebuilding itself.

This is one of the privileges of being an MP. You meet communities like that. Communities where faith and hope are formed.

And you get renewed in yourself when you mix with communities like that. You see the power of faith in action.

But let me go back to the dilemma that I discussed at the beginning - my concerns about how politicians with strong spiritual convictions talk about their faith in political life.

I have not fully resolved my dilemma:

On the one hand, I am cautious. If I identify my political convictions with my religious convictions I risk hindering the faith of someone who disagrees with my politics.

At the same time, a life in politics has taught me the value of those who bring values to the political debate. Society cannot hold together without values.

You can take this further and say society also needs those who say values are not secure without an additional underpinning of the spirit.

Society also needs a values underpinning for its most basic unit, the family, and a conviction among politicians that they should not place impediments to its strength either materially or spiritually.

At the same time we have to recognise that in the end it is our decisions as individuals which count the most, not government policies.

The stronger the moral character of each of us as individuals, the stronger is our society.

Throughout my political career, I have held profound convictions about the importance of strengthening our self-reliance as a nation.

For me, those convictions apply both at a macro level and a micro level. Government should support the self-reliance of individuals.

We are a small nation in a challenging, changing world. We in politics must value the contribution that faith communities make to that strong, self- respecting, self-reliant nation we’re called to be as Australians.