Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Senate would be only too aware, every morning at the opening of the parliament the President commences with the Lord’s Prayer, also known as the Our Father. The Christian prayer said at the opening of each day of parliament is a long-held tradition of the Australian parliament. It is also practised in all of the state parliaments. It is a recognition of our Judaeo-Christian traditions and foundations and it is also a moment for personal reflection. The prayer does not interfere in any secular judgments of the legislative program or process.

It is worth noting that the Lord’s Prayer is the most exalted prayer of the Christian faith. The reason for its exalted status is that the very words of the prayer were given by Jesus Christ to his apostles and subsequently passed down through the ages. There have been many attempts over the years to have this prayer abolished from the daily opening of parliament. One particular occasion I recall was in 1988 when the parliament was moving from the Old Parliament House to the new Parliament House. There was what was strong enough to be a movement to do away with the tradition of saying the Lord’s Prayer in the new Parliament House. However, it failed; the two major parties did not succumb to the pressure of the minorities.

I particularly recall a question, whilst we were still down at the Old Parliament House, to the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, John Button, on this very matter of abolishing the prayer. As he rose to answer the question there was silence in anticipation of his answer. The silence was broken by a witty interjection, ‘Remember who’s listening, John!’ Then he stood up and gave an emphatic ‘no’ to the abolition of the prayer and sat down. Former Senator Button’s strength of leadership and his understanding of the gravity of the matter put paid to any move that it be abolished. Fast forward to 2010, and that same status and protection, given to the Lord’s Prayer in every other parliament prior to this one, is not the case in this 43rd Parliament.

I raise the issue now as enough time has elapsed for me to see and assess the new protocol of the Senate of saying the Lord’s Prayer with a welcome to country reading. I believe the intent of introducing the welcome to country reading has not worked and that, consequently, the respect for the Lord’s Prayer has been watered down. What has occurred is that the prayer is immediately followed by the welcome to country virtually all in the same breath and given the same reverence. In a sense, the welcome to country has been placed on the same plane as the Lord’s Prayer. This is something I do not believe the Indigenous people would even want to see.

The welcome to country is not prayer or a religious rite. Rather, it is a respectful acknowledgement of traditional owners. It ought to be distanced from the greater tradition and meaning of saying the Lord’s Prayer; however, the President is required to give the prayer and the welcome to country equivalent status. It certainly looks like that every morning, to the point that it is not out of place to say ‘Amen’ after the welcome to country.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not if you know the meaning of ‘Amen’. Do you know what it means?

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Amen’ is probably one of the most potent Christian words in the dictionary. The introduction of the welcome to country has been a product of the Greens forming a coalition with the now new Labor Party. In the past the Greens have been at the forefront of calling for the abolition of the Lord’s Prayer from the parliamentary procedure. If they had their way they would abolish the Lord’s Prayer yet keep the welcome to country. This is because the Greens are a notoriously atheistic party. The Greens have been able to achieve, in 109 years since Federation, what no other party or leader would ever allow: the diminishing of our Judaeo-Christian tradition of saying the Lord’s Prayer. This is a party pitched against our Judaeo-Christian foundations and, to this extent, they have won a small victory.

I believe the welcome to country ought to be taken out of the daily opening of the parliament and given another parliamentary slot. It is more appropriate that the acknowledgement is used at the opening of a new parliament, as is the case. Members would be only too aware of the ceremony held out in the forecourt before the opening of a new parliament which the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others attend. Further, there is no objection when the option is taken up to acknowledge the traditional owners at major functions or events in the Great Hall.

The real point is that the welcome to country ought to be separate, and be seen to be separate, from the meaning or significance given to the Lord’s Prayer in the parliament. I seek a delinking of the two. I believe the great many Christian Aboriginal people would agree with me. They would see this procedure in the Senate and in the House of Representatives as nothing more than gesture politics at best and offensive at worst.