Daily BulletinDaily Bulletin

The Conversation

  • Written by Luke Beck, Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law, Western Sydney University

In a nation that is increasingly secular, religion still plays a vital role in the way we run our country. In this series, we examine the role of religion in Australian politics and education.

Each sitting day in federal parliament begins with the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate leading prayers.

But sectarian official prayers are inconsistent with the religious diversity of the Australian community MPs are elected to represent. They are also open to challenge in the High Court for breaching the Constitution’s separation of religion and state provision.

Parliamentary prayers

The prayers were introduced shortly after Federation in response to a voracious petition campaign organised by Protestant church leaders.

The first prayer is the Protestant version of the Lord’s Prayer, which includes the line:

… for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.

When parliamentary prayers were first introduced in 1901, the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne complained they were “distinctly Protestant”.

The second prayer calls on God:

… to direct and prosper the work of Thy servants to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.

This prayer is a modified version of “A prayer for the High Court of Parliament” from the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer.

Australia’s federal MPs are apparently servants of the Christian God, working for his glory.

Inconsistent with religious diversity

Australia is a religiously diverse and multicultural nation. It is inconsistent with that diversity for federal parliament to have official prayers based on one particular religious denomination.

This is especially so, since that particular religious denomination is a minority one. The 2016 census showed 30% of Australians have no religion; 22% are Catholic. Only 13.3% of Australians report being Anglican.

Federal parliament should not officially endorse or sponsor particular religious denominations or beliefs. Doing so sends a message to non-adherents of the favoured religious denomination that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community. Federal parliament should not play favourites among religious denominations or between religious citizens and non-religious citizens.

I recently appeared before a federal parliamentary inquiry looking at religious freedom in Australia and suggested that the committee recommend official prayers in parliament be abolished. Committee member and Labor MP Sharon Claydon responded by suggesting that abolishing parliamentary prayers might be politically difficult.

May be unconstitutional

Official prayers in parliament may also be unconstitutional.

The Constitution prohibits laws for imposing religious observances. Yet parliament’s standing orders force people to participate in religious practices.

Prayers are a type of a religious observance, and it is compulsory for the president and the speaker to recite the parliamentary prayers. This also affects everyone else in the chambers and public galleries.

The constitutional issue was briefly considered when prayers were introduced into federal parliament. But a majority of politicians took the view that standing orders are not laws and so are not subject to the constitutional prohibition on religious observances.

Not all MPs agreed. Labor senator Gregor McGregor asked:

What did the framers of the Constitution mean? Did they mean that the parliament was not to impose religious observances in the streets or in the schools? Did they mean that parliament was not to impose religious observances anywhere else but here?

The High Court has never ruled on this issue. A classic text on the law and usages of the British parliament describes standing orders as a species of law. So, the standing orders might well fit the description of laws for imposing religious observances.

Australia’s Constitution also prohibits religious tests for holding a federal public office. This prohibition applies generally, and is not limited to laws imposing religious tests.

The standing orders make it the job of the president and the speaker to participate in religious activities. A person has to be willing to participate in particular religious activities if they want to take on either role. This looks rather like a religious test for a federal public office.

A person affected by the compulsory parliamentary prayers could go to the High Court and argue the prayers are unconstitutional. Certainly a federal MP would have standing to bring a challenge. They are affected, since they have to participate or acquiesce in the prayers, or else limit their attendance in the chamber for the duration of the prayers.

An ordinary member of the public might also be able to bring a challenge. Courts in Canada and the US accept that official prayers held by legislative bodies affect members of the public who come to sit in the public gallery. Canadian courts even accept that official prayers may deter people from running for public office.

There is no good reason for federal parliament to have official prayers.

Read other articles in the series here.

Authors: Luke Beck, Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law, Western Sydney University

Read more http://theconversation.com/official-prayers-in-federal-parliament-are-divisive-and-unconstitutional-and-should-be-scrapped-81673

Why the Black Lives Matter protests must continue: an urgent appeal by Marcia Langton


Sweden eschewed lockdowns. It's too early to be certain it was wrong


‘The Epilogue’ to Traidmarc’s incredible story of conviction


The Conversation


Did BLM Really Change the US Police Work?

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has proven that the power of the state rests in the hands of the people it governs. Following the death of 46-year-old black American George Floyd in a case of ...

a Guest Writer - avatar a Guest Writer

Scott Morrison: the right man at the right time

Australia is not at war with another nation or ideology in August 2020 but the nation is in conflict. There are serious threats from China and there are many challenges flowing from the pandemic tha...

Greg Rogers - avatar Greg Rogers

Prime Minister National Cabinet Statement

The National Cabinet met today to discuss Australia’s COVID-19 response, the Victoria outbreak, easing restrictions, helping Australians prepare to go back to work in a COVID-safe environment an...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Business News

Reinventing The Outside Of Your Office

Efficient work is a priority in most offices. You need a comfortable interior that is functional too. The exterior also affects morale. Big companies have an amazing exterior like university ca...

News Company - avatar News Company

Kaspersky and Ferrari partnership: tailoring cybersecurity for an iconic brand

Kaspersky is commemorating the 10 year anniversary of its strategic partnership with iconic, global brand - Ferrari. The cybersecurity company is a sponsor of the brand’s Formula One racing team...

News Company - avatar News Company

Instant Steel Solutions Review

Are you keen on having the right guidance, knowledge and information about the right kind of steel purchases for your industries? If yes, then you are in the right place. There is no doubt that ...

a Guest Writer - avatar a Guest Writer

News Company Media Core

Content & Technology Connecting Global Audiences

More Information - Less Opinion