From the Melbourne AGE:
"Tony Blair was right when, on the eve of his conversion to Catholicism, he said that any British politician who talked about religion ran the risk of being regarded as a "nutter".

In this country, a politician ..who admits that their religion influences the way they vote in parliament will be accused of being a dangerous theocrat intent on introducing the moral majority into Australia.

It is obvious in the treatment of Tony Abbott, tagged by the Canberra press gallery as the "mad monk", to the way the ABC has labelled Catholic social groups, such as Opus Dei, as semi-secret organisations.

The debate about stem cell research, for instance, is often presented as though one side is arguing a moral position and the other side isn't. This is not true. In fact, the arguments from both sides of the debate are founded in ethical and moral considerations.

Morality simply cannot be taken out of politics.

The reasons why the media handles these issues the way it does is because of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the separation of the church and state. The original intention of this ideal was to ensure that the government did not interfere in the affairs of the churches. It means, that the government could not institute an official state religion and that political office holders were not required to pass religious tests.

Separation of church and state does not mean, and was never intended to mean, that anyone with religious convictions was disqualified from participating in politics.

There is also a contradiction in the way the media reports political and moral statements from the churches. Contributions on "social justice" issues are welcomed, but contributions on avowedly "moral" issues are not.

The former government's positions on illicit drugs or same-sex relationships were certainly the same as those of some church organisations, but many non-religious groups held similar positions. If indeed the religious right did have the influence claimed for it, then seldom has so much influence been used to so little effect."

Continued:

"So far Kevin Rudd has defied Tony Blair's pronouncement. The new Prime Minister has proved to be no less religious than his predecessor — if anything, Rudd has been more willing to talk about religion than was Howard, most notably in his description of himself as a Christian socialist.

Having made much of his Christianity during 2007, it will be interesting to see what effect, if any, religion has on the Prime Minister's policies during 2008."

Extract from John Roskam the executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs.