Matt Robson: Prayer must go because it's exclusive

COMMENT

I was amazed when I immigrated with my family to New Zealand as a teenager that the principal at my new state secondary school opened the daily assembly with a Christian prayer.

I was not opposed to Christianity. My mother's family was Catholic; my oldest sister had attended an Anglican secondary school and my older sister a Catholic secondary school. But my secondary school was a state one and there were students there who were Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and non-religious, as well as Christian.

The high school I had attended in Australia, a multicultural one (apart from the Aboriginal community then excluded by apartheid-style laws), ensured that all beliefs were represented at official school gatherings.

Many years later, in 1996, I became a member of Parliament. I had worked as a teacher and a lawyer in South Auckland. I was keen to represent the interests of all of the varied communities in that area.

I believed I had to represent all faiths, religions and beliefs. Thus, the fact that Parliament was opened each sitting day with an Anglican prayer introduced in 1854 surprised me. It struck me that MPs were declaring that not all religions and beliefs were equal.

I also noticed that the great majority of MPs did not swear their allegiance on the Bible but affirmed.

I talked to other MPs about the prayer. To me, it was an act of exclusion for thousands of New Zealanders. I was advised to leave well alone. They advised me that they were not going to stick their necks out on such an issue.

Furthermore, they said, there were far more important matters to worry about. And there certainly were important issues in my first term, as there have been since.

In my second term, as a minister, I attended even more community functions. I noticed how all parties, including Labour, made sure they were at every major event for ethnic communities.

Grand speeches were made praising the diversity that ethnic communities brought to our society. The delight of ethnic food was always mentioned. And New Zealand was extolled as the most tolerant country in the world, where all beliefs were respected.

There was often, in the speeches of my colleagues, a sense that the particular audience should think itself lucky not to be in their homelands, where religious bigotry and intercommunal tension was rife.

In my parliamentary office in South Auckland various people raised, ever so gently and politely, the fact that they felt excluded by the opening prayer, which talked of "true religion ... through Jesus Christ our Lord Amen".

One day I was visited by leaders of the Sikh faith. Sikhs have been here since the early 19th century. A number of my visitors, unlike me, had been born in New Zealand. I had the radio on as Parliament began. The words "true religion ... through Jesus Christ our Lord Amen" seemed to boom out.

We discussed how my visitors, knowledgeable and respectful of the Christian religion, felt as though the words of the prayer were not for them. I decided that I would seek cross-party support at the next all-party meeting to adopt an all-inclusive opening of Parliament for New Zealanders of all beliefs.

The response was vitriolic. "No way," said the National Party representative. "We will not agree to a change. If 'they' come here, they can accept our ways."

Other parties, apart from the Greens, thought the same. I reminded the National MP that many of the "they" were born here, and that there was no state religion.

Moreover, the Bill of Rights Act upheld freedom of belief and I thought Parliament should do the same. I submitted a proposal to review the prayer to Parliament's standing orders committee. This was heard last week. But all the parties, except the Greens, held to the same position.

I had previously taken soundings with religious leaders of the major faiths. Those I spoke to agreed that Parliament should adopt an inclusive statement. They had long moved to such a position in their inter-faith meetings. Rationalists, too, wanted to be included in Parliament's thoughts when it opened each day.

My research revealed that when Parliament first adopted the prayer, it did so only after debate, proposed amendments and a division in which a third of the House voted against. One member feared establishment of a conventicle, another suggested that the House would have to consider what to do if "a gentleman of the Hebrew faith" were elected.

In today's Parliament we do have men and women of various beliefs. We certainly have a much greater diversity of beliefs than in the 1850s. It is not good enough for parties to send their MPs to woo the ethnic vote, proclaim how multicultural they are, then continue to support a practice that was designed to recognise only one section of the community.

Parliament is not acting constitutionally to do so. It is certainly guilty of the sin of hypocrisy. Nor is it good enough for the Speaker to opine that because he is an Anglican, the prayer will not be altered in his time. He is also a representative of the people and must act to uphold constitutional rights.

When I attend school assemblies now, I notice that, unlike my first acquaintance with a state secondary school, the assembly is invariably opened by an acknowledgment of the various cultures and beliefs of students and teachers. There is usually a request for tolerance and respect for each others' beliefs.

On inquiry, I have been told that the students have been entrusted with drafting the appropriate words. A student competition could be held to find the most appropriate wording for Parliament to meet the needs of all faiths and all beliefs.

I hope my colleagues are not afraid to follow the example set by the nation's youth.