Those who sensed that religion had become a bigger part of Australian politics in the early twenty-first century were quite right. Kevin Rudd’s musings on Bonhoffer’s legacy, the government-funded (Catholic) World Youth Day, the Exclusive Brethren’s anti-Greens campaigning and many other policy debates and political events over the last few years have highlighted the interaction between religion, particularly Christianity, and politics.

One indicator of the prominence of religion in politics is politicians’ use of religious terminology. A study of the characteristics of 2422 political speeches between 2000 and 2006 shows that politicians doubled their use of Christian terms – Christ, church, faith, pray, Jesus, Bible, spiritual, God and/or religion – suggesting that religion played an increasingly prominent role in Australian political discourse in the early twenty-first century. (The speeches in the study sample were made by MPs who served as leader or deputy leader, or as ministers or shadow ministers responsible for the ten most important federal issues, between 2000 and 2006.)

During this time, politicians invoked religion when discussing an increasingly broad range of policy issues. A large proportion of early twenty-first century speeches that make religious references were post-September 11 reflections on the state of Australia’s foreign relations. In later years politicians began referring to religion in a broader range of contexts, expanding to touch on the nation’s “way of life” and “social harmony.”

Politicians also became more comfortable about wearing their religious colours on their sleeves. They presented their religious beliefs most often in speeches concerning the “fabric of society,” specifically those that discussed traditional morality in a positive way. Despite the extensive media attention given to politicians’ cameos at Hillsong and Australian Christian Lobby events, however, the proportion of speeches given by politicians to church groups remained relatively stable between 2000 and 2006.

Overall, a greater proportion of Coalition and Labor Party leaders’ speeches contained Christian terms than those given by their ministerial and shadow ministerial colleagues. This might indicate that leaders used religion in articulating their vision for their parties’ and the nation’s future, or their freedom to contemplate topics beyond portfolio boundaries. The framing of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent “war on terror” in a religious paradigm ended adherence to the consensus that political discourse and decision-making be limited to those arguments defensible by reason.

Of course, the use of religious terminology (as measured in this study) does not necessarily translate into religiously motivated actions. But there is evidence that the increasingly religious flavour of political speech has influenced the nation’s political decision-making. Such a shift is problematic because the imagery and ideas are overwhelmingly from the Christian tradition. Tony Abbott’s praise for the “Catholicisation” of the Coalition and his support, as health minister, for a publicly funded pregnancy counselling hotline operated by the Catholic Church are good examples of this tendency. This contravenes the caveat of the “pluralistic” model of secularism that supports the airing and balancing of the interests of multiple faiths and those of no faith.

The introduction of faith-based decision-making has the potential to limit open political debate and reduce the legitimacy of government authority. Given Australians’ low levels of religious literacy, the populace’s ability to distinguish between positions that accord with religious teachings and those that a politician claims to be faith-based is limited. The American theologian Jim Wallis has described this phenomenon as the link between “belief in God” and “pro-war, pro-rich and pro-Republican” conservatism in the United States. Likewise, no singular religious text can claim authority within the Australian community therefore politicians’ attempts to draw on such texts to support their point of view limits acceptability of political positions within the community.

In Australia, the legitimacy of faith-based positions is also challenged when “openly religious” politicians and the leaders of their faith disagree on policy positions. Such disagreement was present when Kevin Andrews, workplace relations minister at the time, and Catholic Archbishop George Pell advanced conflicting interpretations of Catholic teachings and their application to workplace relations legislation. Such differences of opinion indicate the fallibility of supporting an argument based on an interpretation of faith.

Politicians’ attempts to propagate a national identity based on Australia’s “Christian heritage” and justification of faith-based positions as representative of Australians raises questions about who politicians represent – their electorate or their church (or the followers of their interpretation of their faith). While religion has an increasingly prominent place in our political culture, politicians should exercise caution when invoking religion in Australian politics.