Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 189 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: I am sorry that you are so upset about this, Mr Berry; but I am expressing my point of view, as I am entitled to.

Mr Berry: No, I am not upset about it. I am upset about the way you approach it.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, just a moment. You were heard in comparative silence. I ask that the same courtesy be extended to Mr Humphries.

MR HUMPHRIES: I say that I regret this move because I think members who oppose the retention of the prayer misunderstand the way in which the prayer operates. There is certainly nothing at the present time that prevents a member, such as Mr Berry or Mr Moore, who does not wish to partake in the prayer from reflecting on other things during that period. We all acquire the capacity in this place to think of other things while someone else is talking. That is a very important skill you have to acquire.

MR SPEAKER: It certainly is not difficult, Mr Humphries.

MR HUMPHRIES: No. What does the prayer represent? It is certainly a matter of some considerable traditional value. As I understand it, to remove the prayer would make us the first parliament in Australia to do that and perhaps one of the first in the Westminster tradition to do so. There are many features of parliamentary practice that are purely traditional and that have, arguably, no organisational or functional value but are part of the way in which parliaments of this kind have operated for many centuries. I think it is unfortunate that we should be removing that provision from the arrangements.

I also think we need to beware of the argument that imposing a Christian prayer somehow intimidates or discriminates against others in the community who are not Christians or do not believe in God. This debate has come forward fairly frequently in the United States. Members might be aware that in that place there has been a frequent debate about the placement of what they call creches - manger scenes - in public buildings at Christmas time. Argument has been made that to place a Christian symbol in a public building is somehow an infringement of that nation's constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. That is true, and the debate has been resolved in various ways over the years.

It would be a most unfortunate position for us to reach in this place that any expression of a Christian value or tradition was in some way an imposition on other members of the community. I think the spirit of multiculturalism in this country is about accepting and encouraging a diversity of such expressions, rather than uniformly levelling them all so that there is no expression at all that might be considered to be of one side or another. If there happened to be members of other faiths in this chamber, it may be appropriate at some point for us to consider incorporating expressions of those faiths into some aspect of parliamentary proceedings, and that is also fine.

I do not know for a fact, but I think most members of this chamber happen to subscribe to a Christian faith of one kind or another, and I would hope that they would not find the prayer obnoxious in those circumstances. If, one day, the majority of members of this chamber belong to a different faith, then it might be appropriate to consider some other expression of that; but to remove it altogether is most unfortunate. I would have greater

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .