Legislative Council, Tuesday 28 March 2023

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - I personally have no strong position on the matter of prayers being read in parliament at the start of each sitting day. A couple of reasons; one, I believe there is a significant difference between saying prayer and reading prayers. Also, I do acknowledge we need to reflect and respect the diversity of our people, our parliament and our state.

In speaking to this motion, I have read many texts, statements, arguments and views that I do not agree with, but I still read them. Reading something is not the same as saying it is a matter of personal belief. While this may seem like semantics, it is an important comment and distinction.

I also note, that reading a Christian prayer is exclusive and does not respect the wide range of religions, views and customs in Tasmania that exists beyond Christianity.

The prayer read in our parliament and many others around the country is also not inclusive of all Christian traditions, as the Catholic church uses a different version of the Lord's Prayer than do the Protestant churches.

I have not in the time available the opportunity to fully consult with my community about the particular wording of this motion, many of whom hold strong religious views and have prayer as an important part of their lives.

I also acknowledge our state is rich in diversity. Not everyone shares those religious views and nor should they be required to, and respect for our diversity is important.

Then, without the broad input of the community of Tasmania, but particularly the people I represent, I made my own observations on this motion and hope to have the opportunity to hear more broadly from other people I personally represent at a later time.

Whilst we might have differing views, I do believe all Tasmanians should have an opportunity to express their views, even though we may not agree with them.

I also believe it is important to acknowledge that prayers may signal a sense of the divine, a higher order or a reminder that we are part of something bigger than each of us, regardless of our own personal belief, religious belief or observances.

We can also argue that reading the currently read prayers, as they are so read, provide favouritism to the Protestant faith. So, what do we replace it with, without showing favour to another religion or faith?

I suggest that this is very difficult, and as Professor George Williams would advocate, a preference may be for a charter of rights. A charter of rights covers many things including inherent rights and responsibilities.

The question is, how best to resolve this question?

I would also argue that reading the prayers is part of the parliamentary ritual. If we are honest with ourselves, we should acknowledge that all humans have and need rituals. Rituals and practices transcend the immediacy of our daily grind, focus and attention.

To remove a tradition and ritual that has been part of our parliament for over 100 years, that is respectful and reflective of the foundations of our legal system, should require careful consideration. Change should be fully considered through the appropriate processes for such a change. Whether we like it or not, or personally agree with this tradition or not, prayers and Christianity are part of the foundations of our legal system. If you read the Ten Commandments, these are pretty much enshrined in the Criminal Code, along with lots of other things.

I also note the ecclesiastical church law heavily influenced family laws related to divorce, de facto and property settlements. Whether we like it or not, this is part of how our laws have been developed. As members of parliament in this place we are lawmakers; laws which are founded in Judeo-Christian beliefs. Many would suggest the reading of prayers is an acknowledgment of this history and tradition, not a declaration of any particular faith.

Yes, we rightly amend laws to bring a new law to reflect our modern world. However, what I am talking about here is not whether we should actually change and modernise parliament as it currently is. I am talking about the basis of our lawmaking, which is the key focus of our work. Christian morals and values - and again I am not talking about religion here, I am talking about Christian morals and values, which I personally think the vast majority of people share - are adopted in what we regard as the rule of law.

To illustrate why I believe the form of words which may be substituted needs further consideration, I wish to look back at our founding and the establishment of the rule of law. It is a bit of a history lesson, but I hope members will find it informative and inform the reason why I proceed in this way with this motion.

Dr Augusto Zimmermann, a professor of law at Sheridan College in Perth, Western Australia, a Professor of Law Adjunct at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney campus, wrote an article titled, Christian Foundations to the Australian Law. This is accessed from the Western Australian Legal Theory Association website.

I also did some research on Dr Zimmermann to learn more about him and his background. He is a Brazilian-born professor and is an internationally-known legal scholar, a prolific writer, an author of numerous articles and academic books. He is broadly recognised as one of the nation's strongest proponents of free speech. He is a former law reform commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, from 2012-17, and a former vice-president of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy. Dr Zimmermann is also the founder and president of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association, editor-in-chief of the Western Australian Jurist Law Journal, and a fellow of the International Academy for the Study of Jurisprudence of the Family.

Dr Zimmermann has been included, together with 12 other Australian academics and 'policy experts', in the Heritage Foundation's directory in locating knowledge, knowledgeable authorities and leading policy institutes actively involved in the broad range of public policy issues, both in the United States and worldwide. I did a check on him to make sure he was not just focused in one particular area, I think he is pretty broad.

In the article he stated:

While the Australian legal tradition cannot lay claim to the historical depth it has in America and England, it was still built on a similar solid Christian foundation. Christian ideology is infused in both the legal and governmental institutions and customs of Australia. As with America and England, our country possesses remarkable Christian influences – starting with the first British fleet departing for Australia in 1787, when Captain Arthur Phillip was instructed to enforce a due observance of religion and to take such steps as were necessary for the celebration of public worship.

You have to remember this is 1787.

Although the Christian religion played a vital role in originally shaping Australian society, this does not mean that people from other religions were not welcomed, nor does it mean that there was any obligation for those living in the land to belong to the Christian religion, or indeed any religion.

I am still quoting his comments here.

The remarkable climate of religious tolerance and open-mindedness was stressed in the first sermon preached on Australian soil on Sunday, February 3, 1788. On that occasion, the Rev. Richard Johnson began his sermon with the following remarks:

'I do not address you as Churchmen or Dissenters, Roman Catholics or Protestants, as Jews or Gentiles […] But I speak to you as mortals and yet immortal […] The Gospel […] proposes a free and gracious pardon to the guilty, cleansing to the polluted, healing to the sick, happiness to the miserable and even life for the dead.'

Sadly, I know many of our fellow Tasmanians have not experienced such religious tolerance or many other people around Australia. Christian values and morals can, and in my mind, should guide and inform our decision-making, our respect for others, who may not share our beliefs, open-mindedness, tolerance, and whilst caring for others who may be different from us, but nonetheless, one of us.

I am sure we have all had to deal with this, in a number of debates we have had over recent years in this place. Religion is often the basis for these intolerances, and that is one of the problems with religion. Christianity is not so. The article continues:

The colonisation of Australia began as the result of a decision by the Imperial Parliament (UK) to establish a new penal colony. It was Admiral Arthur Phillip (1738-1814) who founded the British penal colony of New South Wales in what later became the city of Sydney. He was determined that the common law would be fully introduced in the new colony. Since the colony was established within a context of the Western legal tradition which was steeped in Christianity, there was as a clear symmetry between Judeo Christian values and the law of the land in numerous areas of public morality and social behaviour. As noted by law professor Michael Quinlan, ‘this was a consequence of the historical dominance of the Christian faith among the population in the colonies and historically in England from which Australia inherited … the common law and the compendium of English legislation which they brought with them’. From the very beginning Phillip brought a philosophy of government to Australia that aimed to treat all interests in the new colony equally and to prevent sectional conflict, including the values ‘which produced the great campaign led by Wilberforce to end the institution of slavery’. As Keith Windschuttle points out,

'[T]hese values include truth, courage and love, and loving your neighbour as yourself. Even with the decline of organised religion, these Judeo-Christian values continue today to permeate our laws, our language, and our fundamental institutions. They are part of our broad Australian culture.'

Governor Phillip regarded slavery as a direct affront to the values of Christianity, once stating ‘that there can be no slavery in a free land and consequently no slaves’. As noted by David Furse-Roberts, ‘Phillip was resolved to execute what he saw as his humane mission to treat the indigenous people with respect and to invite them to be part of the new society …

I am not sure they were entirely successful in that mission, Mr President, but that was the intention stated. Further:

the British settlement of Australia was an ambitious project. … Significantly, Christian traditions came to Australia particularly through the English legal system. Australian government and laws were developed out of English legal-political institutions, which are deeply imbued with this important Christian heritage. At the time of British settlement in the continent, Christianity formed an integral part of the theory of English law and government. Christian values were naturally manifested in the legal system, and applicable to the situation of the colonists.

Mr President, while acknowledging that is not directly related to the motion as such, regarding the removal of the prayers as currently read in the motion and the prayers as currently read by you at the commencement of each sitting, what I seek to illustrate is that we have our deep and important links to Christian values, not religion. Dr Zimmermann does go on to remind us of the absolute failing in this regard by the colonists in their recognition of Aboriginal laws and tradition. This is why I believe an acknowledgement of Aboriginal peoples at the beginning of every sitting day is so important. This has sadly led to the appalling disrespect and abuses of the original owners and custodians of the land of Australia, which I acknowledge and I am really sorry that was part of our history.

The purpose of raising this aspect of our history is because this leads us to the history of how the reading of prayers in this parliament came about. At the time of colonisation, Judeo Christian values were so embedded in Australia that those charged with writing our national constitution thought it was necessary and, indeed, it was overwhelmingly supported by the public at the time, and sadly without any input from the Aboriginal people, that the recognition of God be included in the nation's founding document. Dr Zimmermann wrote:

When Australians think about Federation, they are not used to thinking about its deeply Christian undertakings. And yet, the opening of the first federal Parliament suggests a Christian society that was deeply comfortable with the role of religion in the public square. The then Governor General, Lord Hopetoun, delivered the prayers for their Majesties the King and Queen, and for the new Federal Parliament of Australia. Hopetoun bowed his head as a sign of humility and the multitude joined him in the Lord’s Prayer. He read out the oath and the first members of federal Parliament were sworn in with their Bibles in hand. …

… Whatever one might think of all this, it is simply not possible to understand it without reference to Christianity. Curiously, Christian practices still deeply permeate Australia’s legal-institutional traditions even to this very day. For example, prayers are still conducted prior to opening proceedings at both state and federal Parliaments in Australia. Standing Orders for the House and Senate determine that the Speaker must read a prayer for Parliament, which is followed by the Lord’s Prayer before calling for the first item of business. With all parliamentary members remaining standing, the Speaker concludes the opening proceedings with this prayer:

'Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia.'

Strangely, however, the Christian foundations of our constitutional democracy now appear to be increasingly doubted, suppressed and even denied. Since Australian society is normally viewed as entirely “secular” and “multicultural”, our Christian legal heritage is almost never mentioned, much less appreciated, in political and intellectual discourse in this country. Despite the best efforts of secularists to suppress the truth about our rich Christian heritage, it is simply impossible to deny that our legal system has a distinct Christian philosophical foundation that has prevailed till the present day. To state this fact is not to be ‘intolerant’ of other cultures and religions, but simply to stress an undeniable truth.

It is important to understand what we are talking about. It is not about religion; it is about the Judeo-Christian basis from where our laws originate and the values with which they hopefully - permeate much of our decision making.

In a chapter written for a book by Professor Julian Rivers, Professor of Jurisprudence, University of Bristol Law School, he wrote:

Modern commitments to political liberty and equality in the law emerged out of debates which were internal to Christianity - debates which were catalysed by inescapably radical liberty and equality exemplified by Jesus and his disciples. Jesus is the model of an accountable public servant, using power for the good of others and conscious of his answerability to a higher tribunal. English nationhood owes more than a little to the example of Israel. Christianity also reinforced a commitment to authority, order and the rule of law.

The relationship between the law and Christianity is inextricably bound up in the history of secularisation. Secularisation can mean a number of things, but two of its key senses are: the process of societal structural differentiation and the construction of religion as a matter of personal choice and commitment. Both of these senses flow from Christianity. In the first sense, the ancient distinction between church and government multiplied after the Reformation to produce other social institutions, such as schools and hospitals which, while still imbued with the Christian spirit, were organisationally relatively independent from both church and government.

In the second sense, Christianity's emphasis on personal faith in God as opposed to the collective norms of right worship and right living, led to the idea that this is characteristic of religion in general. This means that the law can still be Christian, even when it has ceased to be expressly Christian. The paradox is only apparent when the law reflects shifts in judgement about its proper use from a Christian perspective. Perhaps the position could be put like this: English law is Christian in the sense that for the most part, it is consistent with a Christian view of the proper purpose and content of secular law. It represents a possible extension of the doctrine of the two. This does not mean that all Christians agree with all of it; rather, disagreements about what the law should be are not clear disagreements between Christians and non-Christians. This Christian natural law tradition, arguably reached its fulfillment in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the mid-20th century Human Rights Movement more generally. Fascism and communism are both correctly seen as hostile to the basic Christian framework - on account of the failure to respect the equal dignity of all human beings, and excessive state authority and restrictions on the freedom of the church. [TBC]

To return to the origins of the rule of law and what fundamentally guides our work as lawmakers, the key principles of the rule of law include -

(1) The law must be both readily known and available, and certain and clear;

(2) The law should be applied to all people equally and should not discriminate between people on arbitrary or irrational grounds;

(3) All people are entitled to the presumption of innocence and to a fair and public trial;

(4) Everyone should have access to competent and independent legal advice;

(5) The judiciary should be independent of the executive and legislature;

(6) The Executive should be subject to the law and any action undertaken by the Executive should be authorised by law;

(7) No person shall be subject to treatment or punishment which is inconsistent with respect for the inherent dignity of every human being; and

(8) States must comply with their international legal obligations, whether created by treaty or arising under customary international law.

It is clear historically that Christian values and morals were adopted in the rule of law. What we call 'law' does not exist in an intellectual or moral vacuum. I am not suggesting that we should not review traditions and rituals, but we must not lose sight of our history as we ensure any traditions and rituals remain relevant and the rule of law respected - including its origins.

Other religions and faiths also maintain their traditions out of respect for their history and culture. We can consider Kosher laws, for example. These include public health measures which, when they were first enshrined, were no doubt vital to the health and safety of their people. Jewish people continue to keep Kosher as part of their tradition and the binding of their community, even though the same public health risk no longer exists.

In this parliament, we have evolved, thankfully, to include acknowledgment of country and pay our respects to the original owners of the land. This was done in addition to the existing ritual of reading the prayers. In the limited time available to prepare for the debate I sought to understand the history and rationale for the practice of reading prayers. In our country, there has been a long standing tradition, following our colonial past, with the adoption of the Westminster system of parliament to commence each sitting day with the Presiding Officer reading prayers. The reading of prayers, as opposed to the saying of prayers, commenced at the beginning of the 19th century after what was clearly a fascinating time and debate. The Parliamentary Library of the Australian Parliament has prepared an interesting and quite lengthy document. Rest assured, I am not going to read the whole thing, but I do wish to quote from some of it with regard to the introduction of prayers into the federal parliament and also into the Tasmanian parliament. It is available on the Australian Government website for members who haven't seen it; and it is quite an informative document and quite amusing in parts.

Many arguments have been made over more than a hundred years that prayers have been read at the start of proceedings in each chamber of the Federal Parliament. Parliamentary prayer reading was of interest to church groups during the 1890s, which lobbied members of the Australasian Federal Convention (AFC) to enshrine the practice in the Australian Constitution or Standing Orders of Federal Parliament. The AFC ultimately did not determine whether the new parliament should include prayer reading, and no mention of the practice was made in the constitution.

Although Prime Minister Edmund Barton and his Cabinet determined that several different prayers would be read at the opening of the Federal Parliament, prayer reading was not mentioned in the draft Standing Orders (circulated by Government parliamentarians). However, shortly after the Standing Orders were adopted, they were amended to require prayer reading at the start of each sitting day in both Houses of Parliament.

Since then, despite several debates and attempts to (partly or entirely) remove the prayers, only relatively minor changes have been made. Concerns and endorsements put forth in both the late 19th and early 20th century are often the same sorts of arguments that are repeated today.

So, we are drawn back to history. The paper goes on to discuss prayer reading in parliament. It mentioned at the Australasian Federation Convention in 1897 and 1898 and said:

Despite the considerable interest from church groups, there was no significant debate or resolution on parliamentary prayer reading at the AFC. However, during debate in invoking divine prominence, being included in the preamble of the Australian Constitution, Adye Douglas, representing Tasmania argued that nothing can make religion more ridiculous than to have the form without the substance.

'Prayers in the House of Commons is a mere farce. We might as well say that all business here and elsewhere should be commenced with prayer.

We might go further and say that we should all go on our knees during the prayer, instead of doing good to persons, this would have the opposite effect. Nothing does more harm to religion than an outward show of it.' [TBC]

That was a Tasmanian, Mr President. It goes on. The following year, during a discussion of that, including reference to humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, in the preamble of the Australian Constitution, Adye Douglas again similarly remarked: (tbc time 4.56)

Do not we all know that this is a mockery that a House of Commons at the present time commences its sittings day by day by having prayers read in the Assembly.

Speaker of the House of Commons reads the Lord's Prayer before proceedings are commenced and it has grown into such a farce that nobody attends the house until the prayer is over.

Do you want to introduce that system here? I believe that there are still some legislative assemblies in Australia where they commence the day's proceedings by reading the Lord's Prayer. It was originally done in Tasmania, but it was soon found out to be a perfect piece of mockery and abandoned.

We used to have the Lord's Prayer read in the Legislative Council, but it became a matter of such indifference that the custom was given up. [TBC]

Mr President, it is an interesting history. It is worth contemplating the history. It seems that Tasmania and Tasmanians have had an interesting and quite varied past in reading prayers already to date.

To continue a little further with some history, on 2 May 1901, the federal Cabinet decided parliament would be open by a prayer read by the Governor-General. As a research prepared by the Australian Parliamentary Library notes, the federal Cabinet decision to include prayers at the opening of the parliament were reported as follows:

It had, Mr Barton stated, been decided that the proceedings at Parliament House should be opened by a prayer to be read by the Governor-General. This however, only related to the first day and with Parliament itself to decide what the practicing future should be. Five prayers were recited during the ceremony, including the Parliamentary prayer worded similarly to today's.

This is what the prayer was:

We pray at this time to vouch safe and lay special blessing upon the Federal Parliament now assembling for their first session and that thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations to the advancement of the glory and to the true wealth of the people of Australia through Jesus Christ Our Lord who has taught us when we pay to say:

Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed by thy Name.
They Kingdom come.
They will be done in earth,
As it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.

The reading of prayers of the opening ceremony occurred prior to the adoption of Standing Orders by either House and such the decision to recite prayers at the opening of parliament was made by the federal Cabinet, not by the parliament.

On 10 May 1901, the same year, draft Standing Orders for each House of parliament were presented without mention of prayer reading. I go back to the research paper.

Senator Richard O'Connor, New South Wales Protectionist Party, presented the draft Standing Orders to the senate and stated: (tbc)

These Standing Orders have been very carefully prepared from the Standing Orders of the different states and I think they will be found to embody everything that is reasonable and practical and satisfactory for the conduct of public business as disclosed by the actual experience in the working of the state Parliaments.

There is nothing very new or sensational in them, they were adopting what was already happening in the states. It goes on: (tbc)

Prime Minister Edmond Barton, Hunter, New South Wales Protectionist Party, presented the House of Representatives Draft Standing Orders and ordered copies to be distributed to members. That the Draft Standing Orders were only presented not yet adopted. Neither document mentioned the prayer reading.

The first petitions about Parliamentary prayer reading were presented to the House of Representatives on 21 May 1901. These first petitions to the new parliament related to prayer reading at the start of each day and were tabled one in support when the Moderator and the Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales and one against from Mr John Robertson.

The House of Representatives adopted the Draft Standing Orders presented in May, 6 June 1901, and these made no mention of prayers. On the 7 June 1901, a motion to include prayer reading in the House of Representatives, Standing Orders passed, and to go back to the quoting from the paper with some of the debate at that time:

After being invited to do so by the Council of Churches, William Knox, Kooyong, Free Trade moved a motion in the House of Representatives to amend the Standing Orders to provide that upon Mr Speaker taking the Chair, he shall read a prayer.

Never contemplated women being the Speaker, but anyway, it is in 1901 we are in. It goes on:

The Council of Churches were trying to secure consideration by Parliament of the need of opening its proceedings by reading of prayers, a request Knox felt honoured to accept.

He said, I felt this inaction might have been properly provided for in the standing orders, but I found that the Government prefer that it should receive distinct instruction from the House. I believe no prayer would have more universal acceptance than the Lord's Prayer.

Prime Minister Barton doubted whether such prayers would lead to the improvement of morality, or inculcation of piety, and question whether we better to pray in private, but conceded, ' I know that large number of those who have doubts as to the propriety of these ordances are not so offended in their religious susceptibilities if they are carried out, as those who would demand that ordance of this kind should be observed with their wishes that were not complied with'. Probably should read that to you again but anyway, 'that being said, I am inclined to give way to the course which is least offensive to the religious susceptibilities of the public, and therefore to assent to a proposition of this kind'.

King O'Mally Tasmania, Tasmanian ALP, moved an amendment that would require a chaplain to read the prayers but withdrew it citing a lack of support. Knox's motion eventually passed after some debate, enshrining prayer reading at the beginning of each sitting day in the House of Representatives, however the wording of the prayers was yet to be established.

It seems that Tasmania has been very interested in this matter for a long time and participated in debates in the past, since 1901. To continue further with the history to this to were it was actually enshrined in the Standing Orders. On 13 June 1901, wording of prayers read in the House of Representatives were established in Standing Orders. Again, quoting from the library paper, the Australian Parliament Paper:

Prime Minister Barton presented the Standing Orders Committee report -

So, it had been referred to the Standing Orders Committee and he was presenting the report that proposed Standing Order 29(a) be accepted, which will require specific prayers to be read.

Upon the Speaker taking the Chair each day, he shall read the following prayer, 'Oh Mighty God, we humbly beseech thee at this time to vouch safe thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and thou shall be pleased to direct and prosper all our consultations to the advancement of thou glory and the true welfare of the people of Australia'.

This was then followed immediately with the Lord's Prayer. The report of the Standing Orders Committee was adopted without divison or dissent, recorded and came into force on the next sitting day.

They did not muck around in those days, and that was on the 14 June 1901. That same day, after being invited to do so by the Council of Churches, Senator James Walker, NSW Free Trade, successfully moved a motion to instruct the Standing Orders Committee to frame a Standing Order that would require the Senate to open each sitting day with a prayer. They did not waste any time, this was debated in the Senate the same day. They worked pretty quickly in their committees in those dates. During the debate, on the prayer, Senator Gregor McGregor, South Australia ALP, raised concern about the due reverenace in such an open form as Parliament. He stated and I quote from the paper;- (tbc time 5.04)

As far as religious observances are concerned, I honour those who carry them out in a legitimate way. But I put it to Senators, is religion to be made a parade of? Were not his, God's instructions, 'ye when you pray, go into your closets, that your Father, who in secret, may reward you openly'? Is it following out that teaching to open an institution like this with a prayer? Who is going to offer that prayer? Am I to sit here and listen to someone committing what, to my knowledge, may be an act of blasphemy, then think the Christian religion is being honoured?

Further he raised questions about section 116 of the Australian Constitution. I would like to call your attention to it, section 116 and see if according to section 116 it is within the power of the Chamber to do anything of the kind proposed to make a parade of religion.

Section 116 says:

That the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall not impose any new religion or any religious observances.

What do the framers of the Constitution mean? Do they mean that the parliament was not to impose religious observances in the streets or in the schools? Did they mean the parliament was not to impose religious observances anywhere else than here? However, Senator Frederick Sargood, Victoria's free trade, counter argued. He maintains it is not in the power of the Senate to pass such standing order as is proposed. In support of that view he quotes section 116 of the Constitution Act.

The section says, the Commonwealth shall not make any law. A standing order is not a law. A law requires that it be made by both Houses of Parliament and the Crown, he goes on to say, for establishing any religion or for imposing any religious observance. I take it that those words on which the honourable Senator depends, but I would again point out that a standing order is not a law, therefore I think his argument falls to the ground.

Then, Senator George Pearce, Western Australian ALP, emphasised the need for the prayer to be confined to the Lord's Prayer because he believed that the principles and precepts contained in that prayer, even if uttered by atheists, are worthy of the concurrence of honourable senators and would do no harm, but may possibly inculcate into their minds thoughts which will have a beneficial effect on the legislation they are passing.

It was an interesting time in the argument put forward for having the prayer, not having the prayer, what it really meant, even back then, when you could probably argue that there were more people identifying as a variety of different faiths, if you like, Catholics, Protestants and others in Australia at the time.

Following this debate on 26 June 1901 - that debate happened in mid-June - the Senate adopted the same prayers as the House of Representatives. The Standing Orders Committee interim report recommended that prayers adopted by the House of Representatives be adopted by the Senate. The report of the Standing Orders Committee was adopted without division or dissent recorded, establishing prayer reading in the Senate at the start of each sitting day, which came into effect on the following day, 27 June 1901. All this happened in the first few months of June 1901.

Today, all Australian parliaments currently feature some form of Christian prayers, generally read at the start of each sitting day, except the ACT. The whole paper is very interesting and concludes with the current practice of all Australian jurisdictions, and noting, as I did earlier, that currently, with the exception of the ACT Parliament, all Australian parliaments have their Presiding Officers read prayers at the commencement of each sitting day.

It is my view that this is not an insignificant decision. In regard to my views on whether we should be reading prayers or not, or saying prayers or however you see it, I see it as reading the prayers - that is what it says in the Standing Orders, the Presiding Officer or President will read the prayers - whether I agree with it in principle or not, I do believe it needs further consultation on the form of words. The form of words does not just relate to the prayer, but it is also an acknowledgement. If it is to be enshrined in sessional orders and potentially standing orders, it should be properly and fully considered what the form of words should be.

Therefore, on that basis, with the process undertaken to initially establish practice and tradition that included prayers with a view to introducing a sessional order potentially to become a standing order, that it could, and some would argue, absolutely should reflect a more contemporary society. I intend to propose an amendment to our Standing Orders Committee should have a look at it. I think if we do not do that, if this is not considered more fully in that way, we may risk undermining our history and the basis of our rule of law, which, after all, is our job, lawmaking.

I will read that amendment and speak briefly to it. I have said all I wish to say about the motion, the heart of the motion.

Mr President, I will move the amendment -

That the motion be amended by inserting the word, after the word, 'following' first occurring, the word, 'proposed', and inserting, at the end of the motion, the following words:

'and further the proposed sessional order be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report'.

In moving that amendment, I will speak briefly to it. I believe this will allow a full assessment and the opportunity for broader consideration and consultation on the actual wording. Currently it says 'to read prayers', and if you are going to insert particular words there needs some broader consultation. I am not entirely clear and I do not believe the member for Mersey mentioned who he had consulted directly on the wording of the proposed words. I assume he probably spoke with you, Mr President, as the Presiding Officer who currently reads the prayers but I am not sure who else was consulted.

As I have said, in the time I have had, I have considered the history and, in my view, the most effective process to make such an alteration. The other point is that the motion as presented to us is to include the acknowledgment of country and I appreciate that is fairly new inclusion in our beginning to every day. It is the President's prerogative to make such a change if they wish to. Another subsequent president may change the wording and I am sure when you as the President who first initiated this decided on a form of words that you would use, you would have consulted with the Aboriginal community.

If we are going to enshrine a particular set of words in our Sessional Orders or Standing Orders, that becomes the rule, there needs to be broader consultation with the Aboriginal community about the form of words they would like to see because it is enshrined in that. Currently, there is no standing order that requires that. If it is changed, to be respectful to the Aboriginal people of Tasmania, we should ensure they do have a voice in this. After all, that is what we are talking about federally, very much so at the moment.

Any recommendation from the Standing Orders Committee can be subject to the debate in this House. It does provide a greater opportunity to fully consider all aspects, including the evidence that the Standing Orders Committee may receive, including the wording 'acknowledgment to Aboriginal people' and 'acknowledgement of country'.

In my view this is not an insignificant decision, even though I may agree with the principle and support contemporising our practices in line with our diverse community. However, I believe it needs consultation, not just on the matter relating to the particular wording which has been put in place of the prayer, but the acknowledgment of country as well.

Therefore, on the basis of the process undertaken to initially establish this practice and tradition with a view to changing the current sessional order to better reflect contemporary society, and to do so without undermining the history and the basis of our Rule of Law which is our job, I move the amendment to achieve that.

In my view history and tradition and rituals are important. It does not mean they should not be reviewed and changed and they should evolve over time, but the most appropriate manner in which to achieve this is through the Standing Orders Committee which is established for that purpose. The amendment I propose seeks to do that so I seek the support of members for the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - I wanted to thank members for their support, I think it is an appropriate process. A Sessional Order is a rule, it is something we all have to abide to. It is not something that is optional and if we did it without fully considering the wording of both the matter related to the prayer but also the acknowledgment of country, without proper consultation we are doing this place a great disservice.

I thank members for the opportunity for this to be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration. Now the Standing Orders Committee will have two matters to look there will be some sort of compulsion to get on with the work and actually have some meetings and deal with it. The fact that there is an election, there is only one person up for election on that committee, and that is me. The committee can meet without me in the initial stages if that was determined. Committee work continues as we know, it is not like a lower House election where everything stops. Committee work continues during the Legislative Council election, which has its failings in itself, for those who are facing election certainly, perhaps not for the others.

However, I stand by the comments I have made, the importance of and not forgetting our history and tradition and what brings us here and what our job is while we are here. It is appropriate to have a full and meaningful consultation on this. I do not know how many people in the broader public actually realise this is actually being debated and that suddenly things have changed and were not even informed of it. I do not know who the member for Mersey consulted in terms of the actual wording that has been put forward, but we do need to look at that. It may well be the appropriate set of words but maybe there are some other views on that and we think we should canvass that. I support the motion as amended.

 

Go Back