RELIGION AND POLITICS IN AUSTRALIA Lecture 12 (23 August 2007) CONSCIENCE, PARLIAMENT AND PRESSURE POLITICS 1. Introductory Cases: disciplined political parties and conscience voting • 2000 debate about IVF (see handout). Several letter writers argue the case for the democratic nature of disciplined party voting (“Electors are generally voting for the party, not the individual”). Cardinal Clancy (“No political party should in any circumstances require its members to vote against their consciences”). Greg Barns and others also argue for conscience over party. • Disciplined political parties: Government and Opposition Whips ensure MPs vote the party line. Labor Pledge. Expectations, sanctions and penalties. Crossing the floor may or may not lead to expulsion from party room and loss of pre-selection. • Three types of accommodation between individual and party politics often go together. Single issue politics sponsored by single issue pressure groups. Private members bills (not sponsored by government and opposition). Conscience/free votes. • The issues concerned often, but not always, involve a potential clash between religious beliefs and majority party beliefs. Churches and religious pressure groups often involved. • Cardinal George Pell: “Some seemed to suggest that while a football club, a political party or a business certainly could in some circumstances sack or exclude a member or employee, it was totally out of order to suggest a Christian Church might even consider a similar possibility” (June 2007). Smith/Morris comments in RB; for broader context, Brennan in RB. 2. Conscience Voting Issues • Definition: “a free vote on matters of grave social concern” (Jaensch); “a vote according to their individual consciences” (Solomon); “may occur when a party has no particular policy on a matter or when a party feels that Members should be permitted to exercise their responsibility in accordance with conscience” (Pettifer). Vague definitions and distinguishing conscience issues from others is difficult. • Four components: party leadership; MPs; voters; issues • Traditional issues: abortion; divorce; homosexuality; rape (law reform) • New issues: embryonic stem cell research; IVF • Reform era in 1960s (e.g UK). Traditional legislation reflected JudaeoChristian values. • Single-Issue electoral politics in 1970s and 1980s (emphasis on candidate not party). Right to Life Association formed in Australia in early 1970s. • Removes party protection from MPs and makes them more vulnerable to public pressure. They are forced to expose their personal views. • Generally granted by all parties together rather than one party going alone. • Private members bills ( Moore, Troeth, Allison, Nash on RU486) 1
3.
4.
5.
6.
• Parties may choose not even to have a policy on certain issues. Conscience Voting in Australia • Federal and state parliaments (Victoria about to have one) • Federal: Matrimonial Causes, 1959; Fluoridation of Canberra Water Supply, 1964-66; Human Relationships Royal Commission, 1973-74; Homosexual Acts and the Criminal Law, 1973-74; Death Penalty, 1974 Conscience Voting in Britain • P. Cowley, Conscience and Parliament, 1998; P. Richards, Parliament and Conscience, 1970 • Abortion; Homosexuality; War Crimes; Divorce; Sunday Trading; Animal Welfare; Seat Belts; Embryo Research; Hunting; Capital Punishment; Censorship • Voting without Party? Only on three votes (supporting embryo research; opposing euthanasia; supporting war crimes bill) did a majority of each party vote together. Catholic MPs, women MPs and ‘religious’ MPs voted distinctively. Labor MPs more socially liberal than Conservative MPs. • Cowley: “Even when set free from the supposed dictat of the party whip, most MPs find they are more in agreement with other members of their party than they are with MPs of other parties”. • Advantages: easier for party leaderships than coping with splits or defending policies against unhappy minorities. Parliament becomes more the focus of attention with parliamentarians centre stage, speaking and defending their points of view (see Grose in RB) Euthanasia Legislation, 1996-97 (Maddox “The Politics of Death in RB) • Private Members Bill overturns NT legislation: “rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. • Crucial issue: NT autonomy. Subsidiary issues: moral justifiability of euthanasia; representation of public opinion (70% pro-euthanasia) • Votes were 88/35 in House and 38/33 in Senate (See Warhurst in RB). The voting was across party lines, but Coalition more strongly in favour. Majority of Labor Senators voted against the bill. Eleven speakers cited religious arguments in support of NO vote, while 6 speakers cited such arguments for Yes vote. Maddox: “the campaign by its sponsors reflected a theological agenda which required explicit rebuttal on its own terms”. RU486 and Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Warhurst in RB) • Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005 was voted on in February 2006 • Senate 45:28; House of Representatives 95:50 • Research involving Embryos 2002 was voted on in September-December 2002 • House of Representatives 99:33; Senate 45:26 • Therapeutic Cloning: The Infertility Treatment Amendment Bill 2007 (Senator Patterson) (Grose in RB) • Senate: women 20:4 in favour; men 28:14 against • House of Representatives: women 28:9 in favour; men 54:53 in favour
2