Dictating to democracy - rule by religion?

The Act defines corrupt conduct as “any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority …”

“Corrupt conduct” is “any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority” and which could involve (but is not limited to) any of the following matters: official misconduct (including breach of trust), bribery, blackmail or any attempt at them.

Bribery involves the offer or giving of something valuable to persuade a person to help or do something for the person doing or attempting to do the bribing. A general definition of blackmail is that it is “the act of putting pressure on a person or a group to do something they do not want to do, for example by making threats or by making them feel guilty”: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.

If religious heads offered members of Parliament religious benefits for voting “yes” or “no” to legislation asserted to contradict the principles of the particular faith, would that be bribery under the Act? If they threatened to deny religious absolution or other religious trappings should a member vote one way rather than another, or abstain from voting, would that qualify as blackmail within the Act’s meaning?

It does not matter that the religious head is not a “public official” according to the Act. What does matter is that public officials are being threatened or bribed in relation to their voting intentions or habits.

A “public official” under the Act is “an individual having public official functions or acting in a public official capacity”. It includes the governor, a government minister, and a member of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly. Official functions of members of Parliament and government ministers include the duty and responsibility to vote for parliamentary bills.

It is not necessary that members are actually affected by any threats or any attempts at bribery - whether religious or not. The making of the threats or any offer of a bribe is sufficient.

Whether or not the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act has any role in current debates, surely church - of whatever denomination - and state should remain separate. The public has a right to be confident that elected members are voting for or against legislation freely, without threat or hindrance, benefit or banishment. If religion becomes a ruling feature of any member of Parliament’s conduct, we run the risk of promoting sectarianism where confidence and trust, unrelated to personal faith, are or should be the key.

Members of Parliament, like all members of the community, are entitled to their religious beliefs - or a lack of them. Adherents of religion and religious heads are entitled to their own beliefs, just as unbelievers and heads of humanist bodies are entitled to theirs.

Democratic government and the sovereignty of the people are, however, at risk where religion steps into the parliamentary arena - or seeks to do so. In deciding upon the basis for Australia as a democracy, those involved in the federation debates were diligent in seeking to ensure that religious diktat did not govern law making.

The wisdom of the 19th century developed out of knowledge and experience. The unhappy history of religion, monarchy and government was not to be repeated in the new Australian state. This past wisdom should be adhered to and reinforced in the 21st century present.