Page 577 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is interesting to note the example of where we are going here. Some were saying, “Look, the Council of Churches runs the parliamentary breakfast ceremony for the federal parliament.” There is a federal parliamentary national prayer breakfast which is an official parliamentary event. That could not be held if this motion was applied to the federal parliament. The breakfast is auspiced by a Labor senator, in this case Ursula Stephens, and a Liberal member as well. Under this motion, that national prayer breakfast could not be held in the federal parliament. That is the slippery slope.
Mrs Jones makes a good case about not ignoring our roots. This place passes many laws. The budget will fund many religious groups and ethnic groups. For instance, the Holidays Act gives us a holiday for Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Easter Monday. They are religious events. That is what the holiday is for. “Holiday” is the abbreviation of “holy day”.
By the process that we have in place, this Assembly endorses those days to allow religious ceremonies to take place. That is our history. That is our origin. That is where we have come from. You cannot deny your past, and you should not deny your past or forget your past in some sort of progressive move forward. It is what makes us strong. I think it is sad that we have got to this case where the Assembly appears to be directing the Speaker, and all of us—let me read it:
shall not in any way endorse or be affiliated with any ceremony that involves adherence or affiliation with any religious faith.
I am not sure why we just limit that to religious faiths. There are other things that we should be worried about. Think on that. But the problem here is that the motion is ill considered. The motion is actually inaccurate, because the ceremony itself was run by a religious person, not by the Assembly. The separation continues, as it should. Nothing has entered into this place that would deny that. We do not have, for instance, religious advisers in the Assembly on how things should happen when we pass bills.
I think it is a dreadful state of affairs where a ceremony to honour this place, to bless this place—dare I use the word “bless”, because that might have a religious connotation. Perhaps I will say that I think it is a shame that a ceremony that wanted to wish us goodwill for the year, best of luck in our endeavours, which you could use the word “bless” for if you want, is being attacked in this way when it in no way violates the separation of church and state.
I do not think any of us here would like to see that happen, because what we have in this country and what we have in this city I think is very special, and it is very special because of the separation, and I think we all should defend that.
But I think we also have a role in this place to honour and to lead. If people wish to honour us, I think we should accept that gratefully. Clearly, the dozen or more religious leaders who sat at that altar—if you had been there you would know this—all came forward one by one to welcome the Assembly members to that ceremony, to wish us well, to ask us to do better, to put aside differences on behalf of the community, to make sure that we build up our community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video