Saturday Extra

You might have noticed a photo in some of our newspapers this week
showing three men having an obviously good time: it was one of those
bipartisan moments of enjoyment in Canberra.

There was noted Catholic lawyer and writer Father Frank Brennan, a Jesuit; the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, and Labor's Foreign Affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, all happy to share jokes, slap backs and be comfortable with open discussion of religion.

They were all at an event to launch Frank Brennan's new book Acting On
Conscience, about overlaps between law, religion and politics.

Some might see this as another example of religion entering our public
politics, just the way it does in the USA, and they might lament that.

Others might say bravo, that at last religion is regaining its rightful place,
contributing to open debate, bringing its own unique perspective.

Transcript

Geraldine Doogue:.You might have noticed a photo in some of your newspapers this week showing three men having an obviously very good time; it was one of those bipartisan moments of enjoyment in Canberra.

There was noted Catholic lawyer and writer, Father Frank Brennan, a Jesuit, the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, and Labor's Foreign Affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, all happily sharing jokes and slapping backs, and comfortable with an open discussion of religion. They were all there to launch Frank Brennan's new book, 'Acting on Conscience', which assesses the overlap between law, religion and politics.

Now some might see this as another example of religion entering our public politics, just the way it does in the USA, as we discussed earlier, and they might hate that. Others might say Bravo, that at last religion's regaining a rightful place, contributing to open debate.

Certainly Mr Rudd, who launched the Brennan book, made his own contribution with his significant essay in the monthly magazine called 'Faith in Politics', and of course Tony Abbott has never really resiled from talking about religion in politics. He said this week that the presence of so many Catholics in the Howard government had changed government attitudes on a range of issues.

In other words, both these upwardly mobile politicians appear to believe that talking about religion and politics is now not a career threatener, and I'm delighted to say, they've plucked themselves out of normal Saturday morning duties to join us. Welcome Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott to Saturday Extra.

Both: Good morning, Geraldine.

Geraldine Doogue:.How do you both read the responses to your increasing forays into this realm, where religion's openly discussed as a contributor to our politics. Kevin Rudd, to you first.

Kevin Rudd:.I think there's a degree of concern across Australia about these things being mixed up, and I can understand where that concern comes from. Where I've always been on this question is the importance of separation of church and state, the constitutional debate we had in the 1890s that there should never be an established religion in Australia. And I suppose until the last couple of years I've refrained generally from entering the debate or the secondary debate, if you like, of how Christians therefore should engage in the political debate in this Australian secular state.

But when I saw I think the Family First phenomenon of the last Federal election, and I've seen some of the emergence of what I describe as of Christian fundamentalism combining with market fundamentalism, and becoming a potent political force for the right in this country, I thought it was important to speak out, and speak out on behalf of the long-standing social justice tradition which has been in Christianity for a couple of thousand years. And I think as that debate has unfolded, Geraldine, people are beginning to look at it with I think some fresh eyes, and hopefully not with the same reservations which greeted it when it first began a couple of years ago.

Geraldine Doogue:.Well I suppose that's a work in progress, whether they do greet it sceptically or worryingly, with some sort of implied sense that secularism will go into reverse if this debate occurs. Now you clearly don't think that's mutually exclusive?

Kevin Rudd:.No, I don't. The way in which I look at it is that first of all we support, and I think Tony would support this as well, a separation of church and state, I don't think that's at issue. Secondly, it's how do Christians in this country, and those of other religious traditions, therefore engage the secular state. My argument is if the census data tells us there are 70% of people out there who still believe, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm, in God, then they've got as much a right as anybody else to engage in the political debate. The question is how they go about doing that and what they bring to the table. But it should be a view put onto the secular marketplace of the Australian parliamentary democracy, and public political debate, which is argued calmly, reasonably, rationally, and put into the debate and the mix together with views from agnostics, atheists, socialists, communists, capitalists, whoever else-ists, and distilled through our democratic pluralist secular process.

Geraldine Doogue:.Well Tony, in August you asked your critics to imagine politics without Christians. What would it be like, in your view?

Tony Abbott:.I think it would be a meaner, tougher place, because at the heart of the Christian ethos is to love your neighbour as you love yourself. And while I certainly think that Christians should engage in politics as citizens rather than as members of any particular religious faith, or church, I do think that Christians are a very important leaven in our polity. I think Christian values are an important leaven in our polity.

Geraldine Doogue:.But there are sometimes tensions between the prophetic counter-cultural messages that churches say they want to present, and some would argue that that is their role, and the business of modern politics. Do you sit comfortably with the prophetic role of the churches? For instance, about options for the poor?

Tony Abbott:.Look, there's no doubt that what is heroic virtue in an individual person, could be utter folly if it was pursued by government. For instance, I think Jesus told the rich young man in the gospel to sell all he had and give it to the poor. Well, you know, a government which basically spends all of its budget on social security would be quite wrong. So what's right for individuals pursuing heroic virtue is not necessarily right for governments, in fact the opposite can be the case. So I accept that there is a tension, but nevertheless I think it's very important that people of faith are involved in public life, but the faith imperative and the political imperative are certainly not necessarily the same.

Geraldine Doogue:.Well in fact Kevin, this is where you marched quite candidly in your recent essay. You believe religion should have lots to say about what you describe as the new capitalism. What would it say that other disciplines wouldn't say?

Kevin Rudd:.Well the starting point with Christianity is a theology of social justice, and if you read the gospels, there are many, many teachings of Jesus of Nazareth concerning what to do about the poor. And it's in fact a series of injunctions to not be indifferent to the condition of the poor and to work actively to alleviate poverty. I think the importance of this is that it introduces an important ethical dimension to the way in which people look at politics. Tony pointed rightly to the inherent tension that we face here. And he pointed also rightly to the divide between my view of these things and I think his. There is a view within, it's called a political Christianity, which says that my faith is my private domain. But when it comes to my concern for my fellow human beings, that is primarily or exclusively a matter for my private discretionary charity. We come from a different tradition, and I certainly come from a different tradition, which says No, when it comes to dealing with the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed, whoever they may be, within our country or beyond, or those seeking to come to it as asylum seekers, that you can't be silent and indifferent to that as the State. The State itself must act, and the whole tradition that I come from says that when it comes to this social justice, social responsibility, social concern tradition, it places a burden on politics as well through the agency of the State, through the welfare state, through industrial relations protection, through asylum seekers protections as well under international humanitarian law. These are not just private discretionary decisions whereby you wait for the occasional saints to come up to you on the street, give you a bit of loose change, or offer you sanctuary in times of war.

Geraldine Doogue:.But what does the church in your view, have to say about wealth creation? Like, just getting back to Tony's point about State folly and private heroic virtue, not necessarily something could be shared by a State.

Kevin Rudd:.Well the tradition I think that you see for example in Catholic social teaching holds these two things in tension. And if you go to the gospels as well, you've got parables which talk about people tending the vineyard with varying degrees of energy, enthusiasm, and being rewarded appropriately, and at the same time, many, many parables which talk about what you do about the condition of the poor.

We simply say that human being in their nature are both self-regarding and other-regarding, and when it comes to their other-regarding nature, that is their concern for other human beings, that means that you've got to embrace a set of social and economic policies for the country, through the agency of the State, which look after those, who for whatever reason can't look after themselves effectively, or who need other forms of protection through welfare or whatever. That's the tradition we come from, and it's one which opposes a view of market fundamentalism which says that the market determines the worth of a human being, as it determines the value of any other commodity.

Geraldine Doogue:.Do you have any issue with that, Tony Abbott?

Tony Abbott:.Well I just wonder who these market fundamentalists are, that Kevin is so concerned about, because certainly the Howard government doesn't practice this market fundamentalism that he's talking about. We support a mixed economy, we support a strong social security system, we're very proud of the fact that our industrial laws have boosted employment and boosted wages, and we think the best thing you can do for the battlers of our country, the little man, is to try and create more jobs and higher pay.

Geraldine Doogue:.Kevin Rudd?

Kevin Rudd:.Well market fundamentalism comes out of a political philosophy of neo-liberalism which has been propounded by Freidrich Hayek and if you look at the intellectual centres of that in the political right in Australia, it's at the Centre for Independent Studies and elsewhere, and the Centre, and Tony and I know them well, and they've contributed enormously to the public debate and the clarity of debate in Australia, this Centre has had a huge influence on the current shape of the Australian Liberal Party. My critique of it is this: if you look at this form of neo-liberalism, you look at this form of market fundamentalism, at the end of the day it says that markets determine the value of all things, to the exclusion of any effective protection of the family, the community, or for that matter, public goods like the environment. That's where we come in with a different critique at a political level, but also I say it's consistent with the social justice tradition of the church as well.

Geraldine Doogue:.OK, can I just get Tony's response to that?

Tony Abbott:.Well I think Kevin is setting up a bit of a straw man here, because I just don't believe that anyone, including the Centre for Independent Studies, would say that everything is to be given a market value and nothing counts except a market value. I think that all of us accept that markets are important, they are essential if we're going to have decent functioning prosperous communities. But they're certainly not the only thing, and if we worked all weekend and didn't spend any time with our families because all were interested in is the markets, would be crazy -

Geraldine Doogue:.Now look, all right.

Kevin Rudd:.Can I just quickly come back on that. Where it's not a straw man argument, Tony comes into stark relief with the current industrial relations debate. You see, what you see with the industrial relations changes of the Howard government is this: a concrete articulation of market fundamentalism. Let me put it to you in these terms: if you're concerned as a Liberal about family values and the integrity of the family, but you bring in laws which say you now cannot effectively control what hours you work, when you work, and when your employer may want you to work because of the new structures of the industrial laws have been laid out, our argument is this: there is no more fundamental assault on deep social institutions such as the family than have been delivered by these industrial relations changes, and they come directly out of the school of Freidrich Hayek and market fundamentalism.

Geraldine Doogue:.Tony?

Tony Abbott:.Well, look, I don't want to sound like I'm engaging in a party political polemic here, but I just think Kevin's got it wrong, and there is no difference between this situation and the former situation, except that the Industrial Commission has less control now than formerly. Now there was nothing to say that the Industrial Commission in the past couldn't make decisions on hours of work which were market oriented; the fact is it didn't often, but there is nothing to say that you have to work family-unfriendly hours today, but you didn't have to work them in the past. In fact one of the arguments in favour of the sort of flexibility that we want to see, is that you can tailor your working hours around family obligations much more readily under this system than under the former system.

Geraldine Doogue:.Now I know that Tony Abbott you have family obligations in a moment, the netball calls, but before I let you both go, when it comes to private sexual matters, it seems to me this is the really edgy bit for politicians like yourselves. I would suggest, Tony Abbott, that you go there and become controversial and set up strident opposition to yourself, and Kevin, if I may say so, you subtly dodge it. So how do you both see this, as surely this is uncharted waters in the future.

Kevin Rudd:.That was very unsubtle of you to say that, Geraldine.

Geraldine Doogue:.I've read your essay three times, you do mention homosexuality, but there's not a mention of abortion, say. So how do you try to navigate this, Kevin Rudd?

Kevin Rudd:.Well the question of human sexuality, I'm quite explicit on this and surprised you just said what you've just said. On the question of homosexuality, what I say explicitly in the essay is that I can't find a single teaching of Jesus of Nazareth which rails against homosexuality. I think this is one of the great obstacles when it comes to an effective debate about the role of Christianity in politics, when it's constantly preoccupied with these questions of private sexuality. And that's my view. There is a distinction in the way in which I view things personally, between these considerations on the one hand, and let's call them the great questions of life and the sanctity of life, which are abortion, which are euthanasia, which also go to the question of stem cell research, where I have a much more conservative position, but I think Tony would probably say not as conservative as his.

Geraldine Doogue:.OK Tony, last word to you.

Tony Abbott:.Yes, thanks Geraldine. Look I would very much want to keep private sexual morality right out of our public debate, because let's face it, all of us are gravely imperfect in these matters, all of us are sinful, and this idea that any politician should set himself or herself up as the epitome of moral virtue, I think is just asking for trouble, apart from anything else. But I think there is a difference between private sexual morality as it were, and the fact that we have to regulate embryonic stem cell research for instance, and the fact that Medicare funds some 75,000 abortions a year in our country. I think that these are issues of legitimate public interest and debate, and I think that Christian social teaching has something to tell us on all of these issues.

Geraldine Doogue:.All right, well look, there really are so many more issues, and I think it's a terrific conversation; I'm glad you both started it, as it were, and we might have you back. So off to the netball for you, Tony Abbott, thank you very much.

Tony Abbott:.Thanks Geraldine, and Kevin, good to talk to you, as always.

Kevin Rudd:.Enjoy the netball, Tony.

Geraldine Doogue:.Kevin Rudd, thank you very much to you, and congratulations on the writing in The Monthly.

Kevin Rudd:.Thanks for having us on the program, Geraldine.

Geraldine Doogue:.Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott. I wonder what you think about this. You might have very strong views one way or the other; I'd love to hear form you. So do go to our guestbook. I know we had problems last week by the way, we had a lot of people say that all their emails bounced when they tried to contact us. But we think it's fixed now, so do contact us.

Guests

Tony Abbott
Minister for Health and Ageing

Kevin Rudd
Shadow Minister: Foreign Affairs, Trade and International Security.

Presenter

Geraldine Doogue

Producer

Scott Wales

Story Researcher and Producer

Geraldine Doogue