The Family First
Party is not new on the scene, but few voters know anything about who
they are and what they stand for, so Crikey’s Christian Kerr has been
doing some digging:
Last updated 29 September, 2004
Family First’s friends go coy
Subscriber email – 29 September
Drop by the Assemblies of God website, http://www.aogaustralia.com.au/.
We were able to visit it last weekend. This morning the message is
coming up “This site is currently under construction and will be
Are they disobeying Biblical instruction and hiding their light under a
bushel in the lead up to the election to assist their friends in Family
Many key Family First personnel are linked with the church, but as
their details are not available from the Assemblies of God website at
the moment here are a few pertinent details.
Take federal chairman Peter Harris, a self-described property developer
and management consultant. He has been a member of Paradise AOG for ten
or fifteen years from his accounts, and has been on the board of the
church for many of those, at least the last five.
In the late nineties, he was involved in setting a strategic vision for
Paradise AOG to bring the church into a “position of influence” over
the political, business and media communities in Adelaide.
Harris is involved heavily in the business ministry – a ministry that
makes much of the God given role of business people is to make money to
support the work of the church. This network of Christian
businesspeople has been a significant source of funds for the church
and, presumably, Family First.
Then there is the Evans family. Andrew Evans is a Member of the South
Australian Legislative Council. He has two sons, Ashley and Russell,
who are also both pastors. Ashley is the Senior Pastor of Paradise AOG
in Adelaide, while Russell is the director of Planetshakers Ministries,
their youth conference, and is the Senior Pastor of the new City Church
Melbourne church which was started earlier this year and meets at
Storey Hall, RMIT. More details on the City Church Melbourne team are
And the question everyone is asking – where’s the money coming from? One church insider e-mails:
“Pentecostal churches are brilliant at fundraising. Even though we can
trust Family First when they say they aren’t being funded by the AOG or
by particular churches, with people like Peter Harris and the Evans’s
involved, you can bet your bottom dollar the same people involved with
supporting Christian ministries like Paradise and Planetshakers are
involved with supporting Family First. So while the organisations are
separate, the same identities are most probably present, both on the
fundraising and the giving sides of things.
“When Peter Harris was in Melbourne late last year, he was saying that
they were preparing for this Federal election. My guess is that while
the process of putting up candidates and building local support bases
has been very last minute, Peter & Co were probably obtaining
commitments of money well in advance of the election, if not from the
moment Evans senior got into the upper house in SA.”
One significant Family First mystery remains. Yesterday, The Australian
revealed that the party will not directly preference three Liberals –
the openly gay Ingrid Tall in Brisbane and parliamentary secretary
Warren Entsch, a supporter of same-sex marriages. But the third? No one
knows. Any clues, Crikey army? We’ve heard some suggestions, but they
seem to be based on slurs on sexuality rather than hard fact. Over to
Family First set the record straight
Second subscriber email – 27 September
Family First have now published this document on their website called “The truth about Family First – setting the record straight”.
It contains the following claim: “The party has not raised any bill against Abortion in the SA parliament…”
No, but check out this question on
notice from their lone State MP, Andrew Evans, in response to – would
you believe it – the release of ABS data on South Australia’s low rate
of population growth:
“I note that the list of factors
contributing to South Australia ‘s low population rate did not state
that thousands of abortions were carried out each year. In South
Australia last year a total of 5 471 abortions were carried out…. It is
my understanding that, if we applied the same figure given for the
number of abortions carried out last year … to the year 2050, the
population of South Australia would rise by 246,376.
“It is my understanding that certain
centres in the United States , such as a centre called A Woman’s
Concern in Massachusetts , provide extensive support, counselling and
assistance, as well as accessing the use of technology such as
ultrasound to allow the expectant mother to view her baby. The result
is that many women make a choice not to proceed with abortion. It is my
understanding from a preliminary survey carried out from October 2000
to December 2001 at The Revere Centre (a centre that follows the above
approach, that is, counselling and the use of ultrasound) that, of the
abortion-minded women who contact the centre to have an abortion, a
total of 74 per cent do not abort. My questions to the Premier are:
“1. Will the government investigate
programs in the United States that are reducing the number of abortions
being carried out in centres such as A Woman’s Concern and The Revere
in Massachusetts which provide counselling and the use of technology
such as ultrasound to inform women prior to an abortion being carried
out; and will the government give consideration to a pilot project
being undertaken in South Australia? If not, why not?
“2. Given the government’s new
population policy aimed at increasing the population in South Australia
to two million by the year 2050, will the government give
consideration to introducing a bill to ensure that medical
practitioners obtain a signed declaration from both abortion vulnerable
and abortion minded women to confirm that full disclosure of all the
risks associated with having an abortion has been presented so that
these women are fully informed when consenting to an abortion? If not,
You can read it for yourself here.
Anybody like to explain to Family
First why not? This certainly sets the record straight about where
Family First stands on abortion.
Meanwhile, read what Crikey has written on Family First so far on the site here: http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2004/09/21-0001.html
Is the Uniting Church part of Family First?
A candidate in the current election writes:
The Family First media release titled
“The Truth About Family First – Setting the Record Straight”
also stated “The Board of Reference includes….people from Catholic,
Baptist, Lutheran and Uniting and other church groups”.
I don’t believe anyone comes from the Uniting Church. If they are
refering to Rev Rob Moores, he left the Uniting Church six months ago
over the sexuality issue, and started a new church in which he names
his mentor as being Andrew Evans MLC.
Also I believe that no candidates, including the number one senate
candidates were voted into their positions. Everyone is just chosen –
Family First’s preferences explained?
Forget the talk of some svengali being behind Family First’s preference
decisions. A simple typo may have given us the answer. Key in www.alp.org
– no “au” – and you come to the homepage of the “Audre Lorde Project”,
a “Community Organising Centre for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two Spirit
and Transgender People of Colour”.
God on their side – Part 1
First subscriber email – 27 September
Where is Family First getting the money from for all those coreflutes –
let alone TVs during the Grand Final? Go to the Electoral Commission’s annual returns site – and you’ll find zip.
First have not yet had to declare anything at a federal level, and laws
in their home of South Australia and the party structure mean they have
not had to open the books.
Does the money come straight from the
Assemblies of God? They know a lot about the ins and outs of finance.
Have look at the “Finance Matters” section of their website here.
God on their side – Part 2
Family First’s repeated denials that it is a religious based party
is interesting considering its birth inside the most aggressively
proselytising denomination in Australia.
It is a political
reality that minor parties often stand candidates in lower house seats
with little chance of success out of principle or to try to tip someone
else over the line on their preference. This seems to be key role
number one of Family First – but it has another, more insidious task it
seems to be attempting, too.
Family First seems to be an attempt
to create a neutral brand name in an attempt to ensure that the
religious conservative vote can flourish and grow firmly under the
control of the Assemblies of God, or the slightly wider umbrella it
also goes by, the Australian Christian Churches.
Christian Democratic Party has long relied on support from AOG
Churches, but was most certainly never under the sway of its leaders,
people like prominent minister Brian Houston of Hillsong. Nile’s and
Gordon Moyes MLC’s Uniting Church links have always been problematical,
given that the non-evangelical wing of that denomination could best be
described as the Australian Democrats at prayer (or perhaps deity
Family First is an attempt to create a brand that
has a broad enough appeal to appeal to voters who are not
fundamentalists and may not even be churchgoers, but may well send
their children to non-government church schools for the quality of
moral teaching they receive.
However, despite assurances of
having an ecumenical board, Family First is overwhelmingly a branch of
one specific – and autocratic – church movement, the Assemblies of God.
Their policies were not drafted by party branches, but by
pastors. Any attempt at debate about the merits of those policies are
likely to be rebuffed by claims of a lack of respect for the spiritual
authority of church leaders. Infallibility and democracy, surprise,
surprise, do not mix.
PS Yesterday’s “God on their side – Part
2” item said that Family First were supporting Bob Katter in
Leichhardt. Katter, of course, is the candidate for Kennedy. The Family
First target is Liberal MP Warren Entsch, who behaved quite
uncharacteristically and threatened to opposed the ban on same sex
marriage. The independent Family First is supporting is Jen Sackely –
who no one seems to know a thing about.
God on their side – Part I
Subscriber email – 26 September
Now that the major media outlets have also begun to share Crikey’s
interest in the Family First party, we interested to see this claim in
a release from Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party – who are looking
more and more like the poor cousins in the God bothering politics
stakes nowadays: “Christian Democratic Party – an intentional Christian
party, representing the 70% of people who say they are Christian.”
Have a look at some of these excellent articles on Family First from
the last couple of days to see who has the real clout on the religious
right – Michelle Wiese Bockmann’s stories from The Australian:
Then there were Mike Seccombe’s two efforts in the SMH:
First represents the strongest push yet by religious conservatives into
Australian politics. Fred Nile may have got seats for himself and his
missus under the Festival of Light, Call to Australia and Christian
Democratic banner and been briefly joined by Libs struck down on the
road to Damascus like Jim Cameron (Ross’ old man) and Queensland MHR
John Bradford, but they have not had any real impact.
As we have
been saying all along, Family First’s preferences mean they matter.
Family First say their internal polling puts the party at four per
cent. More than a fifth of the 150 House of Representatives seats are
held by less than that amount.
We have also pointed out how
the party is running Senate candidates in all states and in more than
120 Reps seats in the nation. This is where its church links become
important. The mainstream political parties find it increasingly hard
to get the faithful out on staff booths on polling day – let alone
increase their flock.
The religious metaphors are deliberate.
Family First have a large and motivated pool of believers they can tap
into. They can get personnel on the polling booths pushing how to votes
into people’s hands. Who know what influence this might have in some of
the tighter seats? If undecided punters take the Family First HTV and
follow it, thinking that they’re casting a protest vote, who know how
it might influence the results.
Still, we know all about the
parable of the uppity guest and the seating arrangements (sorta like
Bronny at past Liberal launches) and all those Old Testament lines
about that what is high being laid low.
God on their side – Part II
Family First have had a couple of clangers in their media releases
recently that mean the new party come under close scrutiny in the lead
up to polling day. This media release
announcing their House of Representatives preference deal on Friday was
curious in parts to say the least – curious and defensive.
Look at its opening pars:
Family First commenced due to a concern that societal
principles were shifting away from conservative family values and that
a whole section of society were not being represented in the political
Family First is not about imposing a spiritual agenda
upon Australia but simply about representing a section of society that
is concerned about family values…
Fair enough. It’s
their right to do so in our democracy – but why have they always been
so coy to play down their Assemblies of God links?
And look at the deals they announced:
Family First will be preferencing the Nationals in the
Queensland seats of Brisbane and Capricornia. Family First will be
preferencing the Independent in the seat of Leichhardt. We will be
preferencing the Liberal Party first in the rest of the nation.
does it mean? They like Bob Katter. Not a good start. They think the
Nats are a better bet to knock off young Kirsten Livermore in
Capricornia than the Libs. That’s a fair enough call. And the Libs get
their preferences everywhere else, other than the openly gay Ingrid
Tall in Brisbane. That’s odd. Nasty and odd. Openly gay Democrat Brian
Grieg is getting preferences to try to keep the Greens out in the
Senate race in WA – and no-one serious gives Nat Nick Withycombe a
chance against Arch Bevis in the Labor marginal of Brisbane anyway, so
the preferences will just head back to Tall.
Then there was
this line: “There have been some Liberal candidates who we have asked
to sign a 3 year voting agreement on certain FF policy platforms that
may arise in the Parliament over that 3 year period.”
Wouldn’t this represent a breach of parliamentary privilege, compelling
MPs to vote certain ways? No wonder this clarification came out later:
In reference to the preference announcement by Peter Harris, Federal Chairman of Family First, in Adelaide this afternoon.
In his speech Peter Harris made reference to a ‘contract’ or ‘signing a voting agreement’ in a few seats.
should have been ‘a commitment is being sought from a number of
candidates’ where there are some issues to be sorted out before
Indeed. But there are still these interesting quotes from the original preferences media release:
We have had discussions with the Prime Minister in relation
to policy issues that affect families. As a result of those
discussions, we feel confident that Family First will be able to have
significant input into the development of policy affecting families in
In particular the PM is very receptive to the introduction of family impact statements on submissions made to Cabinet…
Sorry to spoil the PM’s big policy launch day, but perhaps some journos
should ask him about when these meetings occurred, how many there were,
who attended, what was discussed, and what deals were struck.
Subscriber email – 23 September, first edition
Crikey psephologist Charles Richardson has been studying
all the polls and preference deals for the Senate and will be producing
firm predictions on a daily basis as to how the state’s house will look
after October 9. We commence the series with a look at the likely
outcome in NSW:
New South Wales is often the most interesting Senate race. It has
the most votes and the most candidates, so it takes the most work to
analyse. And it’s the only state, since the expansion of the Senate in
the 1980s, that has ever thrown up anything other than a 3/3 left/right
split in a half-Senate election.
NSW has done so twice: in 1990,
when right-wing groups directed preferences away from Chris Puplick and
elected a Labor senator in his place, and in 1998 when the Coalition
directed preferences away from One Nation and elected Democrat Aden
Ridgeway instead of David Oldfield.
This year, preferences are
even more confusing than usual due to the presence of the Families
First (Assemblies of God) ticket, which has had remarkable success in
sewing up preference deals. Assemblies of God will receive preferences
from Hemp, No GST, Lower Excise, Australians Against Further
Immigration, the New Country Party and Liberals for Forests.
are all tiny parties, but between them in 2001 they had a fifth of a
Senate quota. That is a big chunk of votes. If those votes are enough
to put Assemblies of God ahead of its minor-party rivals, then further
preference deals will come into play: from Fred Nile (Call to
Australia), One Nation and the Australian Democrats. In that event, it
is very likely that these parties between them would have enough to
elect a senator ahead of the third Coalition candidate, Senator John
If Assemblies of God are eliminated too early to
benefit, then Fred Nile could conceivably be elected instead, since he
will also get a third of any preferences from the ALP. But the
Democrats cannot perform the same trick, since Nile and One Nation both
flow to the Coalition ahead of them.
None of this would disturb
the 3/3 left/right split; it is likely that Labor and the Greens will
still have 3 quotas between them, electing 2 ALP and 1 Green. But if
Labor is doing badly overall, Tierney and Joan Wood, the Assemblies of
God candidate, might both sneak in (one of them getting the surplus
votes of the other) at the expense of the Greens.
So my call is
2 Coalition, 2 Labor, 1 Green and 1 Assemblies of God, but the third
Coalition candidate and Fred Nile both in with a chance.
Political editor Christian Kerr adds:
Family First are organised. Organised and cashed up. They are
wheeling out a series of television ads that will start running from
the AFL Grand Final at a media event in Adelaide tomorrow and promising
to reveal “unique preferencing arrangements for the House of
Representatives”. The plot thickens.
Family First candidate nicknames
First’s lead Victorian Senate candidate Steve Fielding works in the
superannuation industry as a marketing person for Vision Super – the
old Local Government Super Fund. He’s universally known as “Creepy
Jesus” by colleagues. Says it all really.
Family First goes all fire and brimstone on Crikey
Subscriber email – 23 September, second edition
Family First has sent through the following response to an item in the morning sealed section:
I wish to place on record my regret at the
provision of a link, posted on your site, that assists in the
circulation of certain defamatory statements.
The author of
these statements, was previously employed by the Australian Assemblies
of God national office around 10 years ago whilst I was Chairman of the
After his employment with the
Assemblies of God finished, he published defamatory statements about a
number of Members of the Executive including myself.
requested to stop circulating those statements but he refused and we
were left with no alternative but to take legal action.
defamed then sued him and sought an injunction preventing distribution
of the defamatory statements. The injunction was granted.
wish to express my disappointment at the hurtful and defamatory tactics
of those involved in this matter. It is a low point for democracy and
civilised political discourse.
Dr Matt Burnet
Family First Party
Subscriber email – 22 September, second edition
Three links about God-botherers – this blog on how the Assemblies of God tell their congregation to vote, this very puzzling piece on Family First’s only MP and in today’s Herald Sun, Andrew Bolt reveals what he sees as the sinister side of the conservative Chrisitian party in his column on the power of the pulpit.
Meanwhile, a Green supporter writes:
The papers are all writing that Family First are opposed to
euthanasia and gay marriage. They are also opposed to abortion as as
you can see from this contribution from their number two Queensland senate candidate Tracey Skellern-Smith writing in an online bulletin board.
Subscriber email – 21 September
big question, however, is not answered. Who is their chief tactician?
Who is the preference negotiator? How have they come from nowhere to
become key powerbrokers in just two years? Yes, they are tapping into
an established but untouched powerbase in the Assemblies of God and
other evangelical churches – but just who are the “they”?
A oncer South Australian Liberal state
MP and pastor, Stuart Leggett, has given the party advice, but he
remains a member of the Liberal Party – on the other side of Adelaide
from where he lives in one of disgraced former minister Joan Hall’s
branches. He’s no svengali.
Meanwhile, Family First’s full ASIC details are here: www.crikey.com.au/images/2004/09/21-YVFF8JHT00.pdf
Do any names strike a light?
Subscriber email – 20 September
Christian Kerr writes from the seat of Menzies:
Are we going paranoid here in the Crikey bunker, stuck out in the
Melbourne burbs getting some sort of cabin fever – or does the Family
First Party have some sort of svengali giving them a hand?
They only appeared at the South Australia state election back in
2002. The media ignored them until the end of the campaign. They barely
noticed their links to the Assemblies of God Church – links that let
them get people out on the booths on a mission (literally) pushing how
to votes into punters had – and the way they managed to cut preference
deals that saw them end up with a Legislative Councillor.
Now they are running a Senate ticket in every state and have
candidates in most electorates. All the focus this election has been on
Green preferences – mainly because Bob Brown can never shut up about
the subject, but Family First have cut some smart Senate deals (yes,
Antony, another plug for your ABC election website.
If they can draw on their congregations to man the booths, they
could have an impact on the House of Representative outcome, too. Bob
Brown has been making much about his lower house preferences power, but
Family First seem to be – to quote the Good Book – hiding their light
under a bushel on this subject. Even if they only steer a few stray
votes off in a particular direction, Family First may still be able
swing some seats.
Which begs the question – who’s behind this all?
We referred a couple of months ago to the company structure of the
party as mentioned on an online candidate application form. The page
vanished almost immediately.
An Andrea Mason is listed as the party leader on their media releases. Her details are at http://www.familyfirst.org.au/sa/am.php – but she doesn’t look like a svengali. Their executive is listed at http://www.familyfirst.org.au/fexec.php,
but other than their e-mail addresses we get no details about them. The
party’s contact details are given as post office box in Adelaide’s
north-eastern suburbs at http://www.familyfirst.org.au/contact.php and there’s the brief, obligatory “About Us” at http://www.familyfirst.org.au/who.php – but that’s about it.
Bob Brown is a media tart. Family First, as good God-fearing types,
aren’t tarts – per se – so we don’t hear that much about them. What
they clearly are, however, are efficient organisers – efficient
organisers with a good grasp of political tactics with the potential to
deploy the people needed on the ground to make a difference.
Is it all there own work? Is there some svengali – either inside the
party or a conservative leaning tactician from outside – helping, or
are they simply moved by the spirit. Interesting. Try and block out Bob
Brown and the Greens and keep an ear to ground for what you pick up on
the Family First Party.