Page 563 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think these comments from Professor Haire underpin and highlight the very serious concerns that I and my colleagues share in relation to the developments we saw with the service last Monday, so regrettably I am in the position where I need to move this proposed resolution today. It would have been preferable, Madam Speaker, had you realised and been cognisant of the controversy that your proposal had brought about, to perhaps withdraw from it rather than push on. But you chose to push on and we are now in the position where we need, regrettably, to respond. Therefore, I am moving the motion set out in the terms on the notice paper this morning.
The first part of the motion recognises that the Assembly’s obligation is to represent the interests, views and values of all citizens of the territory. It is not here to represent one faith or religious perspective over another or one philosophical perspective over another. Secondly, the motion recognises that it is an institution separate from adherence or affiliation to any religious faith. It is important to stress that this is about saying the institution of the Assembly—not individual members and their views, but the institution of the Assembly itself—is not one affiliated with any particular religious faith.
Thirdly, the motion raises the issue and reasserts the rights of members to profess their own personal religious faith or philosophical perspective and to organise activities which reflect or honour their religious belief or philosophical perspective separate from the institution of the legislature. Members, of course, as is their intrinsic human right, should be allowed to raise, profess and be public in their religious faith or adherence or in their broader philosophical perspective. This is not a motion attempting to undermine or to disallow such profession. It is absolutely a right intrinsic to all of us as human beings.
Therefore, any suggestion, as I heard on radio this morning, that this means members cannot swear an oath on a Bible is wrong. Any suggestion that you cannot go to an ANZAC Day ceremony and lay a wreath is wrong. This is not what this is about. Members professing their faith as members participating as members is not the problem. The problem is when the Speaker seeks to profess and authorise the establishment of a religious service that links that service with the institution of this Assembly. We are not all of the same faith. We are not all of the same perspective philosophically or otherwise, and that must be respected by the person who represents this institution overall, which is you, Madam Speaker. It is not for you to judge whether or not the Assembly wishes a religious ceremony to be held. The views of members of this place are diverse and different, and that should be respected when it comes to the conduct of your office.
Finally, I would like to turn to the fourth part of the motion which deals with the issue of not endorsing or being affiliated with any ceremony that involves adherence or affiliation with any religious faith. This is about making it clear that we do not want you, as the Speaker, to go and organise religious ceremonies or events that draw a link between this parliament and any particular religious faith or philosophical perspective. It does not mean that we cannot celebrate Christmas. It does not mean that members cannot go to religious events that they are invited to, in whatever capacity they are invited to go. It does mean any of those things. It does not mean that staff cannot be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video