Page 568 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
If the Speaker aspires for there to be strong connections with spiritual communities across Canberra then I would suggest that it is up to members of this place to forge those strong connections, much as we would forge them with other communities that we represent. I see no place to prioritise religious communities ahead of others in our community by instilling them in our parliamentary processes and practices.
I know that as the public debated this issue, some people highlighted that these religious connections were already in place in other legislatures, Westminster and its Lords Spiritual and our own federal parliament which has a church service to mark the start of the parliamentary year. Interestingly, the well-known federal church service is not facilitated by the Speaker of the house or the President of the Senate but rather is organised by the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. It is an ecumenical service held at a different venue each year and the Christian fellowship is responsible for sending out invitations. It comes from a place of tradition. Nevertheless, my calls to the Speaker’s office on the hill clearly indicated that they were not involved in organising the event.
I think that spells out some of the reasons why I think it is not appropriate for the Assembly to have that formal connection. I have no qualms—and I have said this repeatedly in the public domain—with individuals of this place participating in religious events. I have no qualms with them going to community religious events. I go to quite a few. I am invited by a range of communities across this city and I attend those events both out of respect and to learn. Certainly I find it very valuable to go, and they are often quite enjoyable events.
What I think is interesting to reflect on is the advice that was circulated shortly before this debate started, and I think there are some interesting points in here. Mr Hanson has sought to rely on this advice to suggest that the motion cannot go ahead or that it will eliminate a series of activities, and I think it is important to reflect on some of the specific tests.
I think it is quite clear that in a number of places the Clerk has indicated that, in the absence of clarification, a certain interpretation might be possible. So I am going to work through some of this advice now and provide some clarification, because we know that this debate in the Assembly and the intent of the motion, if passed in its present form, as the Clerk spells out, would assist the Speaker to interpret the standing orders down the line. The Speaker’s role is to provide that interpretation.
Let us turn to the first one, which is about the prayer or reflection under standing order 30. The Clerk, in the last paragraph of the first page of his advice, after a discussion of the consequences, says:
Similarly I would envisage that you and future Speakers would have regard to the debates on the proposed continuing resolution (should it be moved and debated in its current form) to seek clarification of whether it affected the operation of Standing Order 30. In other words, it would be easier to interpret if clear reference was made in any debate on the notice of motion …
that the prayer or reflection would not be affected.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video