Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity tonight to talk about one of the petitions just presented in the House, that dealing with retaining the prayer that is said at the start of each sitting day in this place. Tonight the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions, the member for Fowler, presented a petition from 140 citizens calling for the prayer to be retained in its current form. I know from the contact that has been made with the committee secretariat that we are likely to receive further petitions on the subject, both in support of the retention of the prayer and also putting a contrary view. It is not my intention tonight to advocate a particular point of view. I suspect that a range of opinions exist among members of this House about the prayer and what it symbolises. I would, however, like to comment on the process for public input on this subject and the role of the Petitions Committee.

I think it is interesting to reflect that the first petition ever presented in this parliament was one from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales in support of a proposal to open sittings of the House with a prayer. That was on 21 May 1901. This was followed by a motion in the House on 7 June 1901 that the standing orders provide for Mr Speaker to take the chair and read a prayer. The motion was agreed, and following a report by the then Standing Orders Committee on 13 June 1901 a new standing order setting out the text of the prayer was agreed and the standing orders amended. Prayers were first said on 14 June 1901.

The form of the prayer has remained largely unchanged since that time, except for some additional words introduced in 1918 for the duration of the war. It is in two parts, the first seeking blessings on the parliament as it deliberates on matters ‘for the welfare of the people of Australia’. The second component is the Lord’s Prayer.

At the end of October this year the subject of prayers received significant coverage in Sunday newspapers. The Speaker issued a clarification which read:

I have not suggested ‘scrapping’ the Lord’s Prayer as per the headline in some of today’s newspapers. This issue is not under consideration by the House. My comments were made in the context of being interviewed about parliamentary procedure and relate to the fact I have received a wide range of opinions about the opening prayer; from the appropriateness of the use of the 1901 Church of England version of the Lord’s Prayer and whether it should be updated, to the relevance of the prayer in modern Australia.

Commentary in the press continued, however, and there were a number of articles and letters to the editor on the subject. I would be surprised if any member of the House had not received emails, letters or calls in support of the prayer and also in support of change. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have indicated they do not support a change to current arrangements.

The arguments both for and against have been very interesting. Those supporting retention of the prayer point to it as a longstanding tradition of the Australian Parliament; that Australia has a Christian majority and the prayer is a time for a reaffirmation of the purpose of the parliament—to govern for the welfare of the people of Australia. Those supporting change argue that the practice is antiquated, discriminatory and in conflict with the idea of separation of church and state. Many Australians either are not Christian or do not have any particular religious beliefs. Proposals for change have ranged from a minute’s silent reflection through to a non-denominational statement of commitment to the people of Australia.

I believe the petition presented this evening demonstrates a number of things. We, as representatives of the Australian people, want the public to be involved and able to express, directly to the parliament, their views on public issues. Petitioning allows people to do this as part of a suite of ways in which they communicate with their representatives.

The committee will continue to present petitions on a range of topics, provided they are in accordance with the standing orders, as is its role. This may mean that the committee will at times be presenting petitions on the same subject that take directly contrary views. I do not think it is well understood by the general public that presentation of a petition by a member or the committee does not necessarily equate with endorsement of the views of the petition. Presenting a petition is part of a member’s role to represent their constituents, regardless of their personal views. Indeed, I know that the chair has received some correspondence in the past critical of her presenting a particular petition from those who do not support the views expressed via a petition.

My advice to people is to get involved, and, if they feel strongly about an issue, start communicating with the parliament, whether it be via a petition or by contacting their local member. We as members of the Petitions Committee take the revised arrangements for petitioning the House very seriously—(Time expired)

See this speech in context