|
Date
(chamber)
|
Milestones
|
Source
Documents
|
|
26 March
1897
|
Church groups lobby for each
sitting day of the Federal Parliament to start with prayers.
During the 1890s, colonial
church groups across Australia lobbied members of the Australasian
Federation Convention (via petitions) for the Constitution or Standing
Orders of the Federal Parliament to require that each daily session of both
Houses of Federal Parliament begin with prayer by the Presiding Officers or a
chaplain (among other requests).
On 26 March 1897, Edmund Barton,
presented the following petition from 10 members of the Primitive
Methodist Church of NSW (emphasis added):
- That in the preamble of the
Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth it be recognised that God is the
Supreme Ruler of the world, and the ultimate source of all law and authority
in nations.
- That there also be embodied
in the said Constitution, or in the standing orders of the Federal
Parliament, a provision that each daily session of the Upper and Lowers Houses
of the Federal Parliament be opened with a prayer by the President and
Speaker, or by a chaplain.
- That
the Governor-General be empowered to appoint days of national thanksgiving
and humiliation.
Ultimately, the AFC did not
include a specific provision for parliamentary prayer-reading in the Australian
Constitution, instead leaving the matter for Parliament to determine.
|
‘Petition
[from 10 members of the Primitive Methodist Church of NSW]’, Australasian
Federation Council (AFC), 26 March 1897, p. 2.
|
|
Mar–Sep 1897
|
Further petitions received
from church groups for parliamentary prayer-reading.
Over the following months,
identical petitions or those with similar effect were presented to the AFC
that were signed by a significant number of other church groups:
-
2,502 members of the Church of England
in the diocese of Sydney
-
2,145 members of the Presbyterian
Church in NSW
-
794 members of the Congregational
Church in NSW
-
100 members of the St Andrew’s
Presbyterian Church in Bendigo (Vic)
-
Petition from Baptist Church in NSW
- George Turner
presented ‘a petition similar in effect, signed by some 10,000 adults in
Victoria’, and shortly thereafter a more specific presentation of ‘a similar
petition, signed by 2,264 adults in Victoria’
-
1,084 members of the Australasian
Wesleyan Methodist Church in NSW
-
1,500 members of the Women’s
Christian Temperance Union of NSW
-
292 adherents of the Primitive
Methodist Church of NSW
-
Petition signed by the President and
Secretary of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Victoria and Tasmania
-
The following 7 petitions presented
by representative for SA, Frederick Holder:
– 1,115 members of the Wesleyan Church
– 907 members of the Baptist church
– 508 members of the Congregational Church
– 528 members of the Bible Christian Church
– 266 members of the Presbyterian Church
– 185 members of the Primitive Methodist Church
|
‘Petitions’,
AFC, 29 March 1897, p. 1.
‘Petitions’,
AFC, 30 March 1897, p. 1.
‘Petitions’,
AFC, 31 March 1897, p. 1.
‘Petitions’,
AFC, 1 April 1897.
‘Petition’,
AFC, 2 April 1897.
‘Petitions’,
AFC, 6 April 1897.
‘Petitions’,
AFC, 7 April 1897.
‘Petitions’,
AFC, 3 September 1897.
‘Petitions’,
AFC, 6 September 1897.
|
|
22 April
1897 and 2 March 1898
|
Prayer-reading
in parliament mentioned at Australasian Federation Convention.
Despite the considerable
interest from church groups, there was no significant debate or resolution on
parliamentary prayer-reading at the AFC.
However, during debate on
‘invoking Divine Providence’ being included in the preamble of the Australian
Constitution, Adye
Douglas, representing Tasmania, argued:
Nothing can make religion more
ridiculous than to have the form without the substance. Prayers in the House
of Commons are a mere farce … We might as well say that all business here or
elsewhere should be commenced with prayer. And we might go further and say
that we should 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 to make an outward show of it.
The following year, during a
discussion about including reference to ‘humbly relying upon the blessing of
Almighty God’ in the preamble of the Australian Constitution, Adye Douglas
similarly remarked:
Do not we all know that it is a
mockery that the House of Commons at the present time commences its sittings,
day by day, by having prayers read in that assembly? The Speaker of the House
of Commons reads the Lord's Prayer before proceedings are commenced, but it
has grown into such a farce that nobody attends the House until the prayer is
over. Do we 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.
|
‘Preamble’,
AFC, 22 April 1897, 1186.
‘Commonwealth
of Australia Bill’, AFC, 2 March 1898, 1739.
|
|
2 May 1901
|
Federal Cabinet decides
Parliament will be opened by prayer read by the Governor-General.
Despite media speculation that
the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney William
Smith would be invited to recite prayer, the Federal Cabinet decides
Governor-General Lord
Hopetoun would read multiple prayers, immediately after the Duke and
Duchess of Cornwall and York take their seats.
The Federal Cabinet decision to
include prayers at the opening of Parliament, was reported as follows:
It had, Mr Barton stated, been
decided that the proceedings at Parliament House should be opened by prayer,
to be read by the Governor-General. This, however, only related to the first
day, and it would be for Parliament itself to decide what the practice in
future should be.
|
‘The Commonwealth’,
The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 May 1901, 5.
‘Opening of
Parliament’, The Age, 3 May 1901, 5.
|
|
9 May 1901
(Senate)
|
Prayers read during the
opening of Federal Parliament.
At the opening of the new
Federal Parliament, the Governor-General read prayers in the Senate, with
Members of the House of Representatives gathered, after ‘three verses of the
Old Hundredth hymn were sung’.
Five prayers were recited
during the ceremony, including a parliamentary prayer worded similarly to
today’s.
We pray thee at this time to
vouchsafe Thy 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 Thy glory, and to the true
welfare of the people of Australia, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who has
taught us when we pray to say–
Our Father, which art in Heaven,
Hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come. Thy 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, and the Power, and the
Glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
The reading of prayers at the
opening ceremony occurred prior to the adoption of standing orders by either
House. As such, the decision to recite prayers at the opening of Parliament
was made by Federal Cabinet, not the Parliament.
|
‘The
Opening of Parliament’, Senate, Debates, 9 May 1901, 5.
Form of Prayers to be
used at the Opening of the First Parliament of the Commonwealth,
Government Printer: Melbourne, 1901 [proof
version with edits also available, pp. 37–38].
|
|
10 May 1901
|
Draft standing orders for
each House of Parliament presented without mention of prayer-reading.
Senator Richard O’Connor
(NSW; Protectionist Party) presented the draft standing orders to the Senate
and stated:
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 actual experience in the working of the State Parliaments. There is
nothing very new or sensational in them.
Prime Minister Edmund Barton
(Hunter, NSW; Protectionist Party) presented the House of Representatives
draft standing orders and ordered copies be distributed to members.
Though the draft standing
orders were only presented, not yet adopted, neither document mentioned
prayer-reading.
|
Richard
O’Connor, ‘Proposed
Standing Orders’, Senate, Debates, 10 May 1901, 31.
Edmund Barton, ‘Standing
Orders’, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 May 1901, 33.
The Senate, Standing
Orders Relative to Public Business, 10 May 1901.
|
|
21 May 1901
(Reps)
|
First petitions about
parliamentary prayer-reading presented to the House of Representatives.
The first
petitions to the new parliament related to prayer-reading at the start of
each sitting day were tabled—one
in support (from the Moderator, and the
Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of NSW) and one
against (from Mr John Robertson).
|
‘Petitions’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 21 May 1901, 76.
|
|
6 June 1901
(Reps)
|
House of Representatives
adopts draft standing orders.
The House of Representatives
adopts the draft standing orders presented in May that made no mention of
prayers.
|
The House of
Representatives, Standing
Orders Relative to Public Business [hardcopy version], 1901.
|
|
7 June 1901
(Reps)
|
Motion to
include prayer-reading in House of Representatives standing orders passed.
After being
invited to do so by the Council of Churches, William Knox
(Kooyong, Vic; 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’.
The Council of
Churches were trying to ‘secure consideration by Parliament of the need of
opening its proceedings by the reading of prayers’, a request Knox felt
honoured to accept:
I felt that this action might
have been properly provided for in the standing orders, but I found that the
Government preferred that it should receive a distinct instruction from the
House.
…
I believe that no prayer will 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 questioned if it would be better to pray in
private, but conceded (p. 819):
I know that a large number of
those who have their doubts as to the propriety of these ordinances are not
so offended in their religious susceptibilities if they are carried out, as
those would be who demand that ordinances of this kind should be observed if
their wishes were not complied with. That being so, 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’Malley
(Tasmania, Tas; ALP), moved an amendment that would require a chaplain to
read the prayer but withdrew it, citing a lack of support (p. 819).
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 prayers was yet to be established.
|
‘Prayers’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 7 June 1901, 815–21.
|
|
13 June
1901
(Reps)
|
Wording of
prayers read in House of Representatives established in the Standing Orders.
Prime Minister Barton
presented the Standing
Orders Committee report, that proposed SO 29a be accepted, which would require
specific prayers be read:
Upon the Speaker taking the chair
each day he shall read the following prayer:
Almighty God, we humbly beseech
Thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and
Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all our consultations to the
advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.
Our Father, which art in
Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy 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, and the
Power, and the Glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
The report was
adopted without division or dissent recorded and came into force the next
sitting day (14 June).
|
‘Prayers’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 13 June 1901, 1077.
House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Standing Orders, First
Report (re Prayer), 13 June 1901.
|
|
14 June
1901
(Senate)
|
Standing
Orders Committee instructed by the Senate to recommend a form of daily
prayer.
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 prayer.
The President of the Senate, Richard Baker (SA,
Free Trade), also informed the Senate that he had personally received several
communications, from the Council of Churches and other religious
organisations, all supporting the motion.
|
‘Daily
prayer’, Senate, Debates, 14 June 1901, 1136.
|
|
14 June
1901
(Senate)
|
Prayer-reading
in parliament debated in Senate.
During the
debate on a daily prayer in the Senate, Senator Gregor McGregor
(SA; ALP) raised concern about the due reverence paid to prayers in an open
forum such as parliament:
As far as religious observances
are concerned, I honour those who carry them out in a legitimate way; but I
want to 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 seeth in secret, may reward you openly”? Is it
following out that teaching to open an institution like this with prayer? Who
is going to offer that prayer? Am I to sit here and listen to somebody
committing what to my knowledge may be an act of blasphemy, and then think
that the Christian religion is being honoured?
Further, he raised questions
around section 116 of the Australian Constitution:
I would like to call your attention
to it [s.116], sir, and see if according to section 116, it is within the
power of this 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, nor any religious observances.
What did the framers of the Constitution mean? Did they mean that the
Parliament was not to impose religious observances in the streets or in the
schools? Did they mean that Parliament was not to impose religious observances
anywhere else than here?
However, Senator Frederick Sargood
(Vic; Free Trade), counter-argued:
He [Senator McGregor] maintains
that it is not in the power of the Senate to pass such a standing order as is
proposed, and, in support of that view, 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 to be made by both Houses of
Parliament and the Crown … It goes on to say—
for establishing any religion or for imposing any religious observance.
I take it that those are the words on
which the honourable senator depends, but I would again point out that a
standing order is not a law, and therefore I think his argument falls to the
ground.
Senator George Pearce (WA;
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 the that prayer, even if uttered by atheists, are
worthy of the concurrence of honourable senators, and would do no harm, but
may possible inculcate into their minds thoughts which will have a beneficial
effect on legislation they are passing.
|
‘Daily
prayer’, Senate, Debates, 14 June 1901, 1138.
|
|
26 June
1901
(Senate)
|
The Senate adopts the same
prayers as the House of Representatives.
The Standing Orders Committee
interim report recommended ‘that the prayers adopted by the House of
Representatives be adopted by the Senate’. Some debate ensued on the issue
that some Senators had not seen the wording of prayers used in the House of
Representatives:
Senator Sir Frederick SARGOOD
(Victoria)—With
regard to the first recommendation, I would suggest that the prayers be
printed. I have not seen them, and I have not the slightest idea what they
are … If we [the Senate] approves this report we are adopting these prayers
without having seen them.
The PRESIDENT—The prayers are in the Votes
and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, which have been sent to honourable senators.
Senator Sir Josiah SYMON (South
Australia)—Yes, and we have never seen them.
The report was adopted without
division or dissent record, establishing prayer-reading in the Senate at the
start of each sitting day, which came into effect on the following day.
The wording of the prayers were
as follows:
Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee
at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that
Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all our consultations to the
advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.
Our Father, which art in Heaven,
Hallowed by Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy 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, and the power, and the
glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
|
‘Standing
Orders: Prayers-Chairman of Committees-Quorum’, Senate, Debates,
26 June 1901, 1568–1569, 1578.
|
|
10 June
1903 (Senate)
|
The Senate changes the
wording of the parliamentary prayer.
The Senate adopted the Standing
Orders Committee recommendation to change the wording of the parliamentary
prayer (read before the Lord’s prayer), to remove reference to ‘at this time’
and to change ‘all our consultations’ to ‘the work of Thy servants’.
|
J. R. Odgers, Australian
Senate Practice, (Canberra: Australian Parliament, 1953), 60–61.
|
|
1 September
1903
(Senate)
|
Revised parliamentary prayer
is read for the first time in the Senate.
The revised wording of the
parliamentary prayer, as agreed by the Senate in June 1903, came into force.
It remains the last change to
the wording of the parliamentary prayer that is still read today:
Almighty God, we humbly beseech
Thee to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that Thou
wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper the work of Thy servants to the
advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.
|
Odgers, Australian
Senate Practice, op. cit., 61.
|
|
29 July
1909
(Reps)
|
Request made to change the
wording of the parliamentary prayer in the House of Representatives.
Frederick Bamford
(Herbert, Qld; ALP) asked the newly-appointed
Speaker of the House if the wording of the daily prayer for parliament
could be altered, from ‘consultations’ to ‘deliberations’:
Almighty God, we humbly beseech
Thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and
that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all our consultations
deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare
of the people of Australia.
[additions in bold]
Bamford took exception to the
word consultations used in the prayer, ‘seeing that in Australia, at any
rate, it has very unhappy associations’. However, the wording of the
parliamentary prayer was not changed at this time.
|
Frederick
Bamford, ‘Wording
of prayer’, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 July 1909,
1784–85.
|
|
23 May 1918
(Reps)
|
Request made
for an extra prayer for WWI in the House of Representatives.
Hector Lamond
(Illawarra, NSW; Nationalist Party) asked the acting Prime Minister:
whether he will consider the
advisableness of adding to the prayer used at the opening of the sittings of
the House a supplication for the soldiers and sailors engaged in the war?
|
Hector Lamond, ‘Prayer
in Parliament’, Debates, House of Representatives, 23 May 1918, 5025.
|
|
24 May 1918
(Reps)
|
Request made
to change the wording of the parliamentary prayer in the House of
Representatives.
Frederick Bamford again requests
that the word ‘consultations’ is changed to ‘deliberations’ in the
parliamentary prayer:
Yesterday a question was asked
regarding the prayer with which our proceedings are opened each day, and it
was suggested that an addition should be made to the form of words used. On
several occasions in the past I have suggested that the wording of the prayer
should be amended, by the substitution of the word "deliberations"
for the word "consultations," which, in Australia, has a meaning
altogether dissociated from prayer. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, when the
Standing Orders Committee is considering the alteration of the prayer,
consideration can be given to my suggestion?
Speaker Elliot Johnson
(Lang, NSW; Nationalist Party) responded that he should ‘be very glad to do
what he [Bamford] desires’.
|
‘Opening
prayer’, Debates, House of Representatives, 24 May 1918, 5109–5110.
|
|
29 May 1918
(Reps)
|
House of
Representatives changes the wording of the parliamentary prayer and adds an
extra prayer for WWI.
SO 29a was
amended, by recommendation of the Standing Committee on Standing Orders, to
change the wording of the parliamentary prayer to:
Almighty God, we humbly beseech
Thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this
Parliament. and that Thou wouldst be pleased to Direct and prosper all
our consultations deliberations, to the advancement of Thy
glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.
[additions in bold]
The following
additional prayer was also added to the standing orders, to be read before
the Lord’s Prayer during the continuance of the War (WWI):
Strengthen, O Lord, the sailors
and soldiers of our Commonwealth, our Empire, and our Allies; protect them
from all dangers; give them speedy victory over their enemies; and grant that
an honourable and a lasting peace may result from their valour and their sacrifices.
Frank Brennan
(Batman, Vic; ALP) emphasised:
I would welcome an amendment of
the Standing Orders which would permit us to offer up a prayers for peace,
but I would ask that that prayer be offered up in the Christian spirit, and
not in any pagan spirit … I oppose any amendment to the Standing Orders which
will alter the prayer offered up in this House at the commencements of our
deliberations in any direction which is not consistent with the faith of the
great majority of honourable members of this Chamber, namely, the Christian
faith.
|
‘The
opening prayer’, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 May
1918, 5188–5192.
|
|
24 July
1919
(Reps)
|
House of Representatives
debates wording of the prayer for WWI.
Albert Palmer
(Echuca, Vic; Nationalist Party) suggested to the Speaker:
… do you not think it is somewhat
out of place for us to continue to importune the Almighty to grant us peace
when a peace that is highly satisfactory to the Empire has already been
secured.
Speaker Elliot Johnson
responded:
Since the declaration of peace,
certain deletions have been made from the form of prayer which was drawn up
by a Committee appointed to go into the matter; but if honourable members
consider that further revision is necessary, I shall give it consideration.
I would, however, draw special
attention to the wording of that part of the prayer to which the honourable
member refers, and which, to my mind, does not call for immediate alteration,
since what we ask for is a “lasting peace.” We pray—
Strengthen, O Lord, the
soldiers and sailors of our Commonwealth, our Empire, and our Allies.
That, I think, is a supplication
that we can at all times make. The succeeding sentence—
Protect them from all dangers;
give them speedy victory over their enemies,
Is not now read, but is seems to
me that the concluding sentence—
and grant that an honourable
and lasting peace may result from their valour and their sacrifices,
is a prayer that will apply for
all time.
Though the wartime prayer was
stipulated to be read for the continuance of WWI, it is not clear what date
it actually discontinued.
|
‘Form
of prayer’, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 July 1919,
10938–10939.
|
|
17 September
1953
(Reps)
|
Speaker confirms members can
recite Lord’s Prayer with him.
Upon being asked by James Fraser
(Australian Capital Territory, ACT; ALP) whether MPs could recite the Lord’s
Prayer with the Speaker, Archie Cameron
(Barker, SA; Liberal Country League), replied:
The Standing Orders provide that
the Speaker shall read certain prayers upon taking the chair at each sitting.
There is nothing to say that honorable members shall or shall not join in
repeating the “Our Father” if they wish to do so. From my nineteen years of
experience in this House, I think that it might be an excellent beginning to
each sitting if they did so.
|
‘The
Parliament’, Debates, House of Representatives, 17 September
1953, 316.
|
|
28 May 1969
(Reps)
|
Speaker
confirms members can recite Lord’s Prayer with him.
William Arthur
(Barton, NSW; Lib.), asked the Speaker:
A number of members of the House
feel that the opening prayers each day would mean more to them if they were
able to repeat the Lord's Prayer with you. I ask whether we may have your
permission to do this and thus add to the personal and corporate commitment
of the House.
Speaker William Aston
(Phillip, NSW; Lib.) stated he would be very pleased if Members joined in
reciting the Lord’s Prayer, though he emphasised that it would be for each
individual member to decide.
|
‘Prayers’,
Debates, House of Representatives, 28 May 1969, 2318.
|
|
20 March
1972
(Reps)
|
Standing Orders
Committee recommends no change to prayer-reading procedure in House of Representatives.
Doug Everingham
(Capricornia, Qld; ALP) wrote to the Standing Orders Committee proposing that
prayers read once a week would suffice and suggested ‘a more universally
acceptable and relevant formula’, specifically:
Fellow members of one race, let
us ever strive for closer understanding, respect and harmony between the
earth's peoples and their chosen spokesmen, to their greater spiritual,
social and personal welfare, and let us save and cherish other forms of life
and nature in our global village. Amen.
The Standing
Orders Committee recommended that there should be ‘no change either in the
frequency of offering prayers or in their content’.
|
House of
Representatives Standing Orders Committee, Report
together with recommendations (Canberra: House of Representatives,
1972), 13 and Appendix D.
|
|
27 June
1996
(Senate)
|
Outgoing Senate President calls for prayer-reading to be
abolished.
In a speech to
the chamber, President of the Senate Michael Beahan
(WA; ALP) stated:
I believe the Prayers in our
standing orders are an archaic and anachronistic form of words that really
should be changed. I believe that the South Africans have the best idea with
a minute's contemplative silence. That appeals to all faiths, or non-faiths.
Or you could have an evocative poem, or something like that.
|
Michael Beahan,
‘Valedictories’,
Senate, Debates, 27 June 1996.
|
|
21 August
1996
(Senate)
|
Newly-elected
President of the Senate confirms senators can recite Lord’s Prayer with her.
The Senate
President, Margaret
Reid (ACT; Lib), reported to the chamber:
some senators have asked if I
would have any objection to their saying the Lord's Prayer with me. I have no
objection and, if any senator wishes to, he or she may do so.
|
Margaret Reid, ‘Prayers’,
Debates, Senate, 21 August 1996, 2737.
|
|
30 October
1997
(Senate)
|
Senate
Procedure Committee investigates proposal to replace prayers with an
invitation to pray or reflect in silence.
Senator Bob Brown (Tas;
Greens) successfully moved a motion that instructed the Senate Procedure
Committee to hold an inquiry and consult with all senators on his proposed
amendments to SO 50.
The proposed amendments were,
namely, that the daily prayers read in the Senate be replaced with the
following statement:
Senators, let us in silence pray
or reflect upon our responsibilities to the people of Australia, to the
States and Territories which we represent, and to all future generations.
|
Bob Brown, ‘Procedure
Committee: Reference’, Senate, Debates, 30 October 1997,
8418.
|
|
November 1997
(Senate)
|
Senate
Procedure Committee recommends no change to prayers read in the Senate.
The Senate Procedure Committee
received responses from ‘some senators’, after the committee directed a
circular letter to all senators asking for their views on the proposed
amendments to SO 50. The Procedure Committee’s report on the matter stated:
It is clear that many senators
who join in the prayer regard its retention as important, but among those who
do not join in the prayer there does not appear to be a strong view that its
proposed abolition is a significant question which should occupy the time of
the Senate.
Having considered the views of
those senators who responded and of its members, the committee does not
recommend any change to the standing order.
|
Senate Standing
Committee on Procedure, Second
Report of 1997 (Canberra, The Senate, 1997), 4–5.
|
|
26 November
1997
(Senate)
|
Senate debates Procedure Committee’s recommendation to
retain prayer-reading practice.
During the debate on the
Procedure Committee’s second report of 1997, Senator Brian Harradine
(Tas; Ind) stated:
Standing order No. 50 provides
for the President of the Senate to open each parliamentary day with a public
prayer to God for guidance, with the Lord's Prayer to follow. Senator [Bob] Brown
proposed that the public prayer to God be abolished. I am very pleased to see
that the Procedure Committee has recommended against that motion. At this
time of all times we need the guidance of God and that is what standing order
No. 50 has us doing
…
The Prayer for Guidance [parliamentary prayer] and the Lord's Prayer,
publicly recited by the President on behalf of senators, is a humble, public
acknowledgment that parliament itself is subject to a higher law; that unjust
and immoral laws are unjust and immoral, even if correct procedures are
followed. The Our Father is as close to a universal prayer as exists in human
culture. All religions accept the existence of a guiding, benevolent
influence in human affairs if only we hand control of our destiny to the
Creator. Given our heritage and history, it is entirely appropriate that we
symbolise this in the public recital of the Our Father. The preamble to the
Australian constitution itself also declares our intention of:
... humbly relying on the blessing of the
almighty God …
To be secular is one thing; to seek to deliberately and publicly expunge
recited prayer in the Senate is quite another.
Senator Harradine also suggested
modernising the wording of prayers read:
Perhaps there needs to be a minor
change in words in there and in the Lord's Prayer, because the Prayer for
Guidance says:
Almighty God, we humbly
beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that
Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper the work of Thy servants to the
advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.
'Vouchsafe' is not commonly used
and I would have thought a word such as 'grant' would do equally as well. The
Lord's Prayer starts with:
Our father, which art in
Heaven, Hallowed by thy name.
I would have thought that 'who'
might be more appropriate there. I foreshadow that, at some future time, I
will be moving to have the word 'grant' for 'vouchsafe' and the word 'who'
for 'which'.
On the matter of
prayer-reading in the Senate, Senator Bob Brown, stated:
This is a matter that has
attracted some public attention. It has been discussed by the churches. There
has been criticism from Catholic bishops, for example. However, there has
been quite strong and positive feedback, and alternatives have been put
forward to me by other clergy and by members of the interested public.
Senator Brown
also flagged he would continue to pursue changing SO 50.
|
‘Procedure
Committee: Report’, Senate, Debates, 26 November 1997, 9518–9520.
|
|
27 November
1997
(Senate)
|
Motion to replace prayers
with an invitation to pray or reflect in silence rejected in the Senate.
Senator Bob Brown
attempted to replace the parliamentary prayer and Lord’s prayer under
SO 50 with the following statement:
Senators, let us in silence pray
or reflect upon our responsibilities to the people of Australia, to the
States and Territories which we represent, and to all future generations.
The motion was
negatived. Though no formal vote (division) was held, Senator Brown and
Senator Dee
Margetts (WA; Greens) were the only senators recorded in support of the
motion.
|
‘Prayer:
Standing Order 50: Proposed Amendment’, Senate, Debates,
21 November 1997.
|
|
17 March
2005
(Senate)
|
Senator calls for prayers in
parliament to continue.
During a speech to the Senate on
the Lord’s
Prayer in Parliament, Senator Santo Santoro
(Qld; Lib) stated:
I am firmly of the belief that
the prayer should guide the proceedings of the Senate and that, for all the
secularity of today’s Australia, our culture and our very ethos is grounded
in the Christian principles that gave birth to modern democracy. I see
nothing wrong with that and I do not see why anyone should.
…
it is worth noting that in 1901,
the year in which our Constitution established the Commonwealth of Australia
and its legislature, more than 96 per cent of the population was Christian.
Of this overwhelming proportion, 40 per cent identified themselves as Church
of England, 23 per cent as Catholic and the two other large groups,
Methodists and Presbyterians, made up 13 per cent and 11 per cent
respectively. That was the solid Christian foundation on which prayers came
to be said in our parliament. It was from this that Australia drew and
continues to draw both its egalitarian tradition and practice and its status
as a nation of faith.
|
Santo Santoro, ‘The
Lord’s Prayer in Parliament’, Senate, Debates,
17 March 2005.
|
|
13 February
2014
(Senate)
|
Motion
to establish an inquiry into changing prayers rejected in the Senate.
Senator Richard Di Natale
(Vic; Greens), moved the motion:
That the following matter be
referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report:
That consideration be given to
amending section 50 of the standing orders to replace the prayer with the
following: 'Senators, let us in silence
pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to the people of Australia, to the
states and territories which we represent, and to all future generations.'
Senator Claire Moore
(Qld; ALP) cited the reason the ALP did not support the motion was because a
review of all parliamentary procedure was underway, and therefore expected ‘that
the issues raised would be a natural part of that committee process’.
After the motion was negatived
without division or dissent recorded, Senator Di Natale stated:
I am flagging now that Senator
Siewert, who is the Greens' representative on the Procedure Committee, will
be raising this issue specifically with the Procedure Committee. We are doing
this because we live in a country where there is a clear separation between
church and state. We live in a country of many different faiths—in fact, a
country where many people have no faith—and a modern Australian parliament
should reflect that. We do say that there should be some opportunity for
reflection or, indeed, prayer, if people feel that way, and that is why we
would like to see a minute at the start of each day in this place being
offered for that reason.
|
‘Procedure
Committee: Reference’, Senate, Debates, 13 February 2014.
|
|
27 June
2018
(Senate)
|
Senate
Committee inquiry into replacing prayers with an invitation to pray or
reflect in silence established.
Senator Lee Rhiannon (NSW;
Greens), successfully moved a motion that proposed amendments to SO 50
be referred to the Senate Procedure Committee. Specifically, Senator Rhiannon
sought to replace the parliamentary prayer and Lord’s prayer with the
statement:
Senators, let us, in silence,
pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to all people of Australia, and to
future generations.
Further, that the Procedure
Committee:
(a) consult with all senators;
(b) have the power to send for persons and documents, to move from place to
place, and to meet and transact business in public or private sessions; and
(c) invite submissions and take evidence in public session.
After a formal
vote (division), the motion passed.
34 senators voted in support
of the motion: ALP, Greens, Centre Alliance, Liberal Democratic Party, Derryn
Hinch’s Justice Party and Independent, Tim Storer.
30 senators
voted against the motion: Coalition, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON),
Australian Conservatives, Katter’s Australia Party, United Australia Party
(UAP).
|
‘Procedure
Committee: Reference’, Senate, Debates, 27 June 2018.
|
|
2018
(Senate)
|
Senate
Committee recommends no change to prayer-reading practice.
After the
inquiry took place, the Senate Procedure Committee stated in its final
report:
The committee does not consider,
on the evidence before it and after its own deliberations, that there is a
momentum for change. The committee therefore does not recommend that the
amendments proposed in the reference should be adopted.
In reaching this conclusion, the
committee also considered whether an invitation to personal prayer or
reflection could be inserted alongside the current prayer. The committee did
not reach a conclusion on this question, but notes that the Senate could
achieve this by inserting a preamble to the traditional prayer along the
following lines:
Senators, I invite you, as I
read the prayer, to pray or reflect in your own way on your responsibilities
to the people of Australia and to future generations.
As has been observed elsewhere, for
the most part it remains a personal matter for senators whether to attend for
the prayer, or join in the prayer, at the start of sittings. One exception,
of course, is that the standing order requires the President to be present to
read the prayer. The committee notes that some jurisdictions provide the
option of the presiding officer inviting another member to read the prayer.
The Senate may wish to consider whether that option should be made available
through a change to the standing orders. Again, the committee makes no
recommendation on this matter.
A dissenting
report by the Australian Greens was also published, stating:
The Australian Greens firmly
believe that the current prayer, which has been read each sitting day since
1901, is outdated and no longer reflective of Australia’s religiously diverse
and secular society.
|
Senate Standing
Committee on Procedure, Proposal
to replace the parliamentary prayer (Canberra: The Senate, 2018).
Australian
Greens, Dissenting
Report, Senate Standing Committee on Procedure (Canberra: The Senate,
2018).
|
|
13 September
2018
(Senate)
|
Senate
debates Committee’s recommendation to not change prayer-reading practice.
The Deputy
President of the Senate and Chair of the Procedure Committee, Senator Sue Lines (WA;
ALP), presented the Committee’s second report of 2018 to the chamber and
noted:
The committee received
approximately 820 submissions, the vast majority of which did not
support replacing the prayer
…
The submissions made on this occasion and the views of the committee members
and their colleagues suggest the opinions are not significantly different in
2018 than they were during the 1997 inquiry. Those in favour of the prayer
strongly favour its retention, whilst those opposed are less vocal and less
concerned to see it changed.
Senator Di Natale gave a
statement in relation to the dissenting report from the Greens on the matter:
Our proposal is a very
straightforward one. It's one where we invite people to prayer or reflection,
but in silence. Basically, we put forward a proposal where we could use the
opening statement that's read at the start of each day in the Legislative
Assembly of the ACT. That procedure was adopted back in 1995, and not a
moment too soon. To summarise: our recommendation is that as a parliament we
no longer begin each day with the Lord's Prayer—something that is
inconsistent with a modern multicultural, multifaith democracy—and instead we
recommend that the requirement for prayer under standing order 50 be replaced
with an invitation to prayer or reflection. That could be done in silence, it
would be a much more inclusive gesture and it would reflect the breadth of
views right across the Australian community.
|
‘Senate
Procedure Committee: Report’, Senate, Debates, 13 September 2018,
6376–6377.
|
|
3 April
2019
(Senate)
|
Senator calls
for prayers in parliament to continue.
In her first
speech to Parliament, Senator Wendy Askew
(Tas; Lib) stated:
Our system of government and laws
is based on Judeo-Christian principles, and we begin the day's proceedings
with a Christian prayer. Senators do not have to say the prayer or even be
present in the chamber when it's said. There is no compulsion, but it has
been a part of our parliamentary proceedings since the first meeting in 1901.
There has been a proposal in Victoria to abolish the Lord's Prayer in that
parliament. It was made by a minor party in that state's upper house. I want
to place on record that it seems to me to be a particularly poorly timed
proposal in the wake of the awful events in Christchurch. A response to
intolerance should never, logically, be more intolerance. We respect those of
all faiths who have come to Australia, or indeed those of no faith, just as
we respect Australians born here according to their creed or belief. I have
never heard one leader of a non-Christian faith call for the abolition of the
Lord's Prayer in our parliament. These suggestions always come from other
quarters, and, as I say, when unpacked, aren't at their core really about
inclusion at all—quite the opposite.
|
Wendy Askew, ‘First
speech’, Debates, Senate, 3 April 2019, 933.
|
|
July 2022
(Senate)
|
Newly-elected
Senate President calls for end to parliamentary prayers.
President of the
Senate Sue Lines was quoted in the media as stating:
“Personally, I would like to see
the prayers gone. I’m an atheist. I don’t want to say the prayers. If others
want to say the prayers, they’re open to do that.
“Personally I would like to see
them gone but again it’s not something I can decree. It’s a view of the
Senate.”
Senator Lines said the abolition
of the Lord’s Prayer was “certainly on the agenda” and would be raised with
the Senate procedure committee, which considers any matter relating to
procedures referred to it by the chamber or the president.
|
Rosie Lewis and
Alice Workman, ‘Atheist
Senate chief wants prayers gone’, The Australian, 28 July
2022
|
|
1 August
2022
(Senate)
|
Senate
debates prayer-reading in parliament.
Senator Jonno Duniam
(Tas; Lib), stated:
It's passing strange that, in a
world like the one we're living in today, with all of the challenges
households and businesses face, we'd be debating something at least in the
public domain like the prayers said at the beginning of any parliamentary
session. But, now it's up for debate, I'm going to put on record my personal
views around the prayer, and as a Christian I'm very proud to be doing so. As
we know, of course, participation in the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of
any session of parliament and on any sitting day is a voluntary thing. It's
something I encourage others to do, but, certainly, as I say, as with all
commencement proceedings it is voluntary; it is not compulsory.
…
On behalf of the Australians who elect us to come here and to represent them,
we have to get the job right. So, to that end, asking God to help us can't be
a bad thing, in my view, and I wouldn't have thought that, even to atheists,
it would it be a bad thing.
Senator Mehreen Faruqi
(NSW; Greens), stated:
This parliament is more diverse
than ever: more First Nations people, more people of colour and more women.
Australia is changing … If we are genuine about saying to the community that
parliament is a place that welcomes people from every race, faith and
culture, then its systems and norms, which purport to represent the
community, must change. How can we continue to open our daily business with
the Lord's Prayer?
…
Our parliament should be modern and secular, so let's stop pretending that we
are a white Christian monocultural society. We are not. We never were. We
must shed the shackles of colonialism. Racism, the oath to the British
monarch and the reading of the Lord's Prayer to start our day have no place
in here.
|
‘Australian
Parliament’, Senate, Debates, 1 August 2022, 276–277.
|
|
28 September
2022
(Senate)
|
An invitation
to pray or reflect is given before prayers are read in the Senate.
On behalf of the Manager of
Government Business in the Senate, Senator Katy Gallagher
(ACT; ALP), Senator Anthony Chisholm
(Qld; ALP), successfully moved a motion that amended Senate SO 50 to
include the statement preceding the reading of the existing prayers:
Senators, I invite you, as I read
the prayer, to pray or reflect in your own way on your responsibilities to
the people of Australia and to future generations.
The amendment
also included swapping the order of the prayers and acknowledgement of
country, so that the acknowledgement of country is read first (in line with
House of Representatives practice).
ALP, Greens, and
Jacquie Lambie Network senators, and Independent David Pocock voted in
support of the change. Coalition, PHON and UAP senators voted against the
motion.
The amendments
took effect from the first sitting day in October 2022 (Tuesday 25th).
|
‘Senate
standing orders’, Senate, Debates, 28 September 2022.
|