Wednesday, 31 July 2024

Petitions

Lord’s Prayer

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:41): I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration.

It is really a privilege to stand here tonight in support of a petition of almost 11,000 Victorians to retain the Lord’s Prayer here in the Legislative Council. This is an important issue because it is a symbol of the place of faith in our society as well as here in the Parliament. It also forms part of the history of our country, of this Parliament and of the Westminster system. It is well known that our parliamentary system here in Victoria and in Australia descended from the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the so-called mother of the parliaments. The layout of the House of Commons, as faithfully honoured in this chamber and the Legislative Assembly, is the result of one of its earliest meeting places, the original St Stephen’s Chapel in the Palace of Westminster. The benches facing each other, as in a church, and even the position of the Speaker’s chair on high like an altar, come directly from this legacy.

I would also like to acknowledge those from the northern suburbs that have assisted with this petition, particularly the Catholic, Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac, Orthodox, Muslim and Maronite communities, many of which are here today. I thank you for that. I was proud that almost 11,000 people supported the Lord’s Prayer. Of those, almost half were from the northern suburbs of Melbourne. I am conscious that my faith communities in the north have seen this film before. It starts with religious ridicule, then goes to the removal of faith from society and it ends with the very persecution that forced them to flee and to come to a free country like Australia.

I want to specifically mention Faarah Nur. Faarah is a Somali of Muslim faith in Preston. He is a former member of the Greens, and he cares deeply about religious freedom, which led him to make the very sensible decision to leave the Greens political party. Faarah was a sponsor of this parliamentary petition, and it is a credit to him that he has been able to use his voice to stand up for freedom of religion and for all faith communities. He recognises that freedom of religion is not just a Christian issue, which is why you see even the board of imams supporting the Lord’s Prayer.

Since 1857 the Lord’s Prayer has been a longstanding and formal part of both houses of the Victorian Parliament. The recitation of the prayer is a common tradition of the Westminster system. Together with the acknowledgement of country, every day it provides a vital link between these two very important facets of our society. Multifaith communities play a very important role in our multicultural society. Any move to secularise parliamentary proceedings would send a clear message from this Parliament that faith has no place in Victoria anymore, and that would be a very sad day.

I am not opposed to people boycotting the prayer every day, and those who often do are the first to preach to us about tolerance. I could not think of anything more intolerant of faith communities in Victoria than if you sought to remove faith from this place. It would be sending a very clear message that faith has no place in Victoria. The Our Father, at its heart, is a simple prayer and a call to love and serve others before ourselves. To serve others before ourselves is exactly what we are here to do as elected members of Parliament.

When I brought a motion to this house about the Lord’s Prayer, a member of the Labor Party jeered across the chamber, ‘What about the separation of church and state?’ It is completely misused in the Australian context. The phrase draws its origins mostly from the US context, where it was predominantly put forward to protect not necessarily the state from religions but to protect those of fervent religious beliefs from the threat of overbearing government. It certainly does not mean you need to leave your faith at the door.

As representatives we will make decisions informed by our values, and those values at times are inseparable from our faith. Some would say – and have said – the Lord’s Prayer is exclusionary. It is evident to those who support the retention of the Lord’s Prayer that it is deeply inclusive, which is why you see the board of imams supporting the Lord’s Prayer, the Hindu Council of Australia supporting the Lord’s Prayer, the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne supporting the Lord’s Prayer, the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne supporting the Lord’s Prayer and the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council supporting the Lord’s Prayer. So I call on all members to reflect the role not only of faith but of diversity and values in the deliberations you and all of us take in the execution of our duties in this place. Almost 11,000 Victorians have signed this petition in just a few weeks, and they undoubtedly represent thousands more who wish to see faith represented, acknowledged and respected in this Parliament.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:46): Mr Mulholland, what are you doing? You are an elected member of Parliament. You have the opportunity to have conversations with MPs about your views on the Lord’s Prayer rather than spending your time going outside this place and whipping up something that is nothing. There is no proposal to remove the Lord’s Prayer from the Parliament. We have not been considering a proposal. What your petition is saying is that we should oppose a ‘move to abolish the reading of the Lord’s Prayer’. Who is proposing that we abolish it? We have started some minor conversations about ‘Is there an opportunity to modernise the start of the day? What could that look like? Would it be something that is the Lord’s Prayer, plus? Could it be something else?’ But rather than you being mature and having those conversations, you are using this as a platform to feather your own political bed.

Go and speak to people who think that there are moves to remove faith from the Parliament. I have not met anyone that thinks we should remove faith from the Parliament, of the MPs that I have spoken to, at all. There are some people that do not have a religion; I have not met an MP in this place that is not respectful of people’s beliefs. Do I think that our current start of our day is a good reflection of society? I actually think we could do better. But do I think that we should be out there scaring people and saying we are going to eradicate faith from this place? That is such poor practice. I know you are a new MP and I know you want to shore up your future, but the way you are doing it, you are abusing those people in the community and saying to them that any move to secularise parliamentary proceedings would send a clear message from the Parliament that faith has no place in Victoria. How about you have a conversation with people out there and say, ‘Is there anything that we could do that would make you feel more included in Parliament?’ And if it is the Lord’s Prayer for some people, that is fine, but that is not everyone. I stand for representation of all people of Victoria in this place. The current practice we have is arguably exclusionary. We should have conversations around how we make everyone feel included in this place. You are doing the opposite. You are seeking to divide. You are seeking to send a message to people. Your petition is dog whistling. It is not about ‘What about this place being inclusive and welcoming of people?’ You are trying to cause division, and it is actually, frankly, quite disgraceful.

The other issue that I have, honestly, is that I think that if adults sat in the room, we would probably come up with a proposal that everyone was really comfortable with, regardless of their religion, their faith or the fact that they might not have a faith. The problem I have with that is that I thought that would be easy. I thought that we could sit round, we could make sure that everybody –

A member interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: I actually thought it would be possible. I thought that there would be adults in the Parliament that could come up with something that did not offend anyone. I am wrong. I am clearly wrong, because the minute we start to even embark on a thought of a change, you go out there telling anyone of religion that the government – and I can tell you now, there is division on the government side about what you would do as well. This is a parliamentary thing. You have made it a political thing, and that is poor. But I digress. I thought it would be easy as Leader of the Government in this place to sit down and probably come up with something people agree with. I am wrong, I get it – it is not happening. If I was to embark on that conversation, it would divert my attention from the issues that are important to Victorians, not the first 30 seconds of the day of Parliament each day. It is about –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: We are not opposing your motion. I am telling you I do not have time to go and sit down and get an agreement, because it is clear that it is not –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: It would have been a good idea; I thought it was a good idea that we could be more inclusive and could do better than what we are. But the fact that it is being used for division and being used to try and convince people that the government are anti-religion is absolute bulldust, and you know that. I have better things to do with my time. I want to represent and bring about fairness, equality and tolerance in Victoria. I will do that through my ministerial responsibilities, and if someone else wants to come up with an idea that makes everyone happy, they can go for it, but it will not be me.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (17:51): I rise to make a respectful contribution to the petition before the chamber, and I thank the Attorney-General for her thoughtful perspective. The Lord’s Prayer has been a fixture in this chamber since 1857 and in the other place since 1928 – and fun fact: we actually have different versions of the Lord’s Prayer. But let us crunch some numbers to get a little historical perspective on this debate. The 1921 census indicates that, at the time, some 97 per cent of Victorians identified as Christians, with about 39 per cent being Church of England and 21 per cent being Catholic. Fast-forward a hundred years and those numbers have declined somewhat. In the 2021 census about 41 per cent of Victorians identified as Christian, 39 per cent nominated no religion and about 13 per cent described themselves as non-Christian religious or did not respond at all. So 41, 59 – it is not exactly a photo finish, and that is reflected in this chamber. Of the 41 upper house MPs sworn into this Parliament to date, only 16 of those 41 took the oath compared to the 25 who took the secular affirmation, indicating that the majority do not identify as Christian.

Notwithstanding that multiple faith agencies have supported the retention of the Lord’s Prayer, the fact is that it is a Christian prayer. In fact it is an Anglican prayer, and Anglicans currently represent 8 per cent of the Victorian population. The recitation of this Christian anthem every sitting day may not be the benign, feel-good ritual it used to be. I am going to say that 16 members of this Legislative Council may want to desperately retain it and the rest perhaps do not. Those members will say that their electorates, their constituents, are very religious, and that is fine, although the stats I quoted earlier suggest that Victorians are not as religious as those members may think. If they do practise a religion, there is less than a 50 per cent chance that it will be in the form of Christianity, and yet in this place, our state’s most important democratic institution, we deliberately privilege one religious world view over all others. I wonder if those multiple faith agencies have been running the numbers themselves and realise that based on current trend data next year’s census will show that Victorians with no religious affiliations outnumber Christians, and those identifying as religious other than Christian will have also further grown.

More than that, the daily Lord’s Prayer is not simply a neutral thing, and to the many Victorians who are survivors or the descendants of survivors of the care meted out to our First Nations people by Christian missionaries or to those who survived abuse in Christian-run schools, children’s homes or orphanages, I dare say the Lord’s Prayer is a painful reminder of trauma and loss. I believe this daily recitation of the Lord’s Prayer impinges on our democratic principles. The separation of church and state is a fundamental element of a liberal democracy, and it is not just an American thing. We see the havoc wreaked on people’s lives when a state is captured by religious dogma in the US, and it is imperative that we be ever vigilant in maintaining that separation. If members feel I am being hyperbolic, look at what has happened in the US, where the rise of Christian nationalism has seen the rights of LGBTQI+ people, women and religious minorities persistently attacked by the Christian right. Australia is not immune to this sort of corrosion.

The petition states that the Lord’s Prayer is a strong reminder that Parliament is not the ultimate authority for building a just and caring society. Who is it reminding? Do members need a greater authority to build a just and caring society? Is that not what we are here to do? Has anyone heard of the voters? If we lack the empathy or the will to recognise injustice or the capacity to care for our communities, an acknowledgement of a higher power will not help. I do not have anything against Christians. I respect Christians. Some of my best friends are Christians and members of many, many faiths. I have worked for Christian organisations. As long as your beliefs do not oppress or damage others, you have every right to hold them. But in this place, that should not mean that you get to impose those beliefs on others.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (17:56): I do feel this is a little bit of deja vu, and I do think there is legitimate concern for all who would look to our traditions and to the history of our chamber, to the history of our Western civilisation and indeed to the history of our Judaeo-Christian traditions as reflected directly into the Westminster system. Mr Ettershank spoke about it just being a Christian matter. It is a Christian prayer; of course it is. But it is much more than that. It actually does symbolise our long history, and not just in this chamber, where it has been spoken every morning since 1857. There is actually a tradition and a history in this chamber, in our state, which is worth preserving in and of itself. In the same way a beautiful old building would be preserved, you should think about that history and that tradition. But it is much more than that. It is actually a direct link back to Westminster. It is a direct link back to our Judaeo-Christian traditions. It is a direct link back to the idea of individualism and the idea of a higher authority, which is applicable for people of many different religions. I say that the symbolism of the prayer is much more than just simply a Christian tradition and Christian background.

There was a red-hot go in the last Parliament to knock over the prayer and replace it with I do not know exactly what, but it was not a well thought through proposal. It was a proposal that went first to a parliamentary committee, and then the government got cold feet and tried to close down the parliamentary committee. The report is there for anyone to read if they wish. We heard from the Leader of the Government that there are no plans to do this. Well, I invite people to go back and read Hansard from 4 August 2021 and see what the Leader of the Government said then. The Leader of the Government said more in the Age on 10 January 2024 and the Leader of the Government said more on 7 March 2023 in Hansard. People can go and read those. The fact is there are some in the chamber who would tear down this tradition. There are some in the chamber who do not see the value in the Lord’s Prayer and what it symbolises. As I say, it is not just a Christian prayer. It clearly is a Christian prayer, but it is actually a prayer that has a lot more resonance and a lot more significance than that.

We have always had a diverse and multicultural community, from the very first. Victoria became a separate jurisdiction in 1851 on 1 July, and we were a diverse community then. Certainly in the months and years after that, with the enormous influx of people from all over the world for the gold rush, we became an extremely diverse community from the earliest times. Self-government in 1856 actually saw the recognition of that diversity and of full election, for the Assembly at first, of male suffrage. It was some time – I can freely confess and see as a negative – until women were able to vote. Nonetheless, from those earliest days – from 1857, a very early point in our period of electoral and democratic activity – we were using the Lord’s Prayer every single morning. That multiculturalism and diversity is important.

As I said, there was a parliamentary inquiry. One of the points we made in the minority report from that inquiry was that the Lord’s Prayer should not be ditched, should not be torn away, without the involvement of the community. If you are going to get rid of it, there should be a proper, broad, open inquiry where people can actually have their say. My colleague has so eloquently laid out a range of religious communities that have strong views. I know when I consulted in that period in the last Parliament I was overwhelmed by the number of religious communities – not necessarily Christian communities – that came to me and said, ‘I want the Lord’s Prayer retained.’ They see the value as a symbol. Many have come to the country because of its democratic heritage, because of the individualism, because of the protection of law – (Time expired)

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:01): I was very interested to see this petition come up, because I had not heard about the issue being raised in this term of Parliament, but I still am very honoured to stand in support of all the people who signed it. I agree that we should not be getting rid of the Lord’s Prayer for many of the same reasons my colleagues have spoken about.

Australia has been profoundly and positively shaped by Christianity – the Christian right and the Christian left. This is a prayer, and if you do not believe in God or you do not believe in the Christian God, then you should not be threatened by a prayer. It is part of our historical and cultural connection to this land, to this people and our shared identity for the future. We should be aiming to conserve and honour the best of our heritage. To characterise the Lord’s Prayer as some kind of heinous, traumatic, triggering idea that brings up all the worst of colonialism is extremely insulting to people of all faiths, no doubt. I would like to point out that reciting the Lord’s Prayer is different to being forced to pray the Lord’s Prayer. You cannot be forced to pray. Reciting some words out of respect is actually a lovely thing to do. When we go and visit mosques, we stand and we sit when we are told to. We go along with the cultural traditions of lots of other religions without being triggered by it.

I was also interested to hear about the crunching of the numbers. I would have thought the people on that side of the house would love to stick up for minorities, so if Christians are indeed the minority now, I look forward to increased support and less victimisation. That will be great. If it is true that we do not need God to be a better society, then why is it that tomorrow we will debate an entire bill dedicated to setting up an entire new regime for parliamentary standards of behaviour and integrity of MPs. We are not doing such a great job, I think. So praying for help to honour people, to serve people, to do well for all people is not a bad thing. It does not matter if you believe in the particular religion at all. It is not a harmful prayer. It is not inciting hatred. There is absolutely no real reason to oppose reciting this prayer, which is a part of our history and our shared identity. It is nothing disrespectful.

I would just like to point out also that people on that side of the chamber love to bring up the idea of women’s rights when they cannot define a woman and to reel off those letters – the LGBTQ+ community. That is not one political group. It is actually very insulting. It is like when you tell a person they have gone off the plantation if they have a skin colour that you think should align with a particular political set of values. It is insulting.

That is what I wanted to say about this. I hope that we retain it, and I am glad to hear that there are no plans to get rid of the Lord’s Prayer. There are lots of people from my own political party here tonight. It is great to see their support.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (18:05): At the outset I will say that although we do not share the views of the petitioners, we acknowledge their democratic right to be able to use this process to raise their concerns. We also believe that as part of the democratic process the Parliament should take note of these concerns. We often have petitions tabled in this Parliament that members may not agree with, but nonetheless it is an important mechanism by which citizens can bring their views into this place.

On the substance of the petition, the Greens have been campaigning to replace the Lord’s Prayer in Parliament, not because we have a problem with the prayer itself but because we believe that the Parliament should be inclusive of everyone while also respecting our history. In 2016 we did move a motion calling for the Parliament to consider suitable alternatives to the daily prayer. We have also successfully campaigned for an acknowledgement of country at the opening of each sitting day. Victoria is a multicultural and diverse community with members of all religions and faiths. Opening a sitting day of Parliament with the Lord’s Prayer is an outdated tradition that no longer reflects the diversity of our community.

We acknowledge that many people in Victoria come from a Christian faith background. We fully respect and acknowledge that. However, our community and indeed our Parliament includes people from many different faiths and people of no faith at all. Many other parliaments around the world have different ways of opening parliament that reflect their multicultural society while also respecting their history. For example, the ACT starts parliament with a moment of silent reflection. The US Congress rotates between prayers of different faiths. We need to realise that Victoria is one of the few places left that recites only a Christian prayer, and we need to be aware that this excludes some members of our community. We believe that the Parliament should be open and accessible to everyone regardless of their faith. I and my Greens colleagues will continue to support measures and push for a Parliament that is more inclusive and representative.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (18:07): I rise to speak about a petition tabled by my colleague Mr Mulholland to retain the Lord’s Prayer in the Legislative Council proceedings that received nearly 11,000 signatures. I was also contacted by others who missed out on signing it and were keen to do so. But we have heard from the Attorney-General today that Labor has considered changing this procedure. I have received correspondence from residents across Northern Victoria, including Marysville, Seymour, Wangaratta, Eaglehawk, Bendigo, Wodonga, Kyabram, Kangaroo Flat, Golden Square and Euroa, all of whom wanted to see the Lord’s Prayer retained in Parliament. I received a letter from a resident of Echuca that says:

This is a beautiful prayer and much more than a few words from an old book. Its place in Parliament helps parliamentarians to respect religion and people of faith in general – who make up over half the population. Reading the Lord’s Prayer teaches respect of others’ views even if they differ from your own. Its themes of humility, dependence and forgiveness are all extremely important and relevant to political debating.

I also received another letter that says:

… this prayer should also resonate with all people regardless of religion. It is a humbling prayer which highlights the frailty and dependence of humankind. It also speaks of forgiveness – reminding us that we should forgive others just as we ourselves wish to be forgiven.

And earlier this year I received a letter from Victorian religious leaders who wrote to all members of Parliament, including the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, the secretary of the Board of Imams Victoria, the president of the Hindu council, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and a rabbi. The leaders urged the Parliament to ensure that this practice continues. It says:

The recitation of prayer is a common tradition of the Westminster system, and together with the Acknowledgement of Country, provide a vital link to two important facets of our heritage.

Secularising parliamentary proceedings would send the wrong message – that faith has no place in our community – when we should honour the faith and diversity of all those that we are here to represent. For more than 100 years the Lord’s Prayer has been read in the Legislative Council. It reflects our heritage. The Nationals are a party with a long history, strong values and respect for freedom of religion and for people to express their faith, and we support retaining the Lord’s Prayer in Parliament.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (18:10): I rise in jubilation because we have somewhat of a backdown, an admission from the government that they will no longer pursue workshopping a replacement for the Lord’s Prayer. I note that the Leader of the Government said, ‘I don’t know any MPs who want to remove the prayer.’ Can I point to an article from 2021, which says:

Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes was the only government MP to speak on the motion and confirmed Labor would ‘commit to workshopping a replacement model that is purpose fit for Victoria’ …

Another MP who wants to get rid of the prayer, the member for Frankston, said that he sees no need for it. The Attorney has several times committed to workshopping a replacement for the prayer. We see a backdown, that she is no longer willing to do that, and that is a good thing.

I am glad we have been able to use the parliamentary process, as is our democratic right, to call on our community to support us. This petition was supported by the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, the Board of Imams Victoria, the Hindu Council of Australia Victoria chapter and the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. Can I just say how extraordinary it is that you get all of those religious communities on a unity ticket to support the Lord’s Prayer. It is not about, as Dr Mansfield said, being exclusionary, not being representative or representing just Christian prayer. It is an acknowledgement of responsible service to the people of Victoria. That is what the Lord’s Prayer is.

Leadership starts at the top. There is a reason why radical secularists target the Parliament, because they know it is at the top. We use the example of the ACT. Look at the path they have gone down. They have just nationalised a Catholic hospital. I do not think that is a good example of where to start. I am glad the government has backed down on this. It is a great day for Victoria.

Motion agreed to.