I was amazed when I immigrated with my family to New Zealand as a teenager to observe the principal at a state secondary school opening 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. However, my New Zealand secondary school was state-owned and there were students who were of the Jewish, Hindu, Buddhists and Christian faiths. There were many non-religious students too.
The high school that I had attended in Australia was multicultural (apart from the Aboriginal community excluded by the then apartheid-style laws and regulations), which ensured all beliefs were represented at official school gatherings.
Parliamentary life
I went to the House of Representatives as a Member of Parliament in 1996. I had worked as a teacher and a lawyer in South Auckland. I was keen to represent the interests of all of the varied and wide communities in that area. I believed that 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 to the community that not all religions and beliefs were equal. I also noticed that a majority of parliamentarians did not swear their allegiance on the bible but affirmed.
I talked with other MPs about the prayer. In my opinion, it was an act of exclusion of thousands of New Zealanders. I was advised to leave the issue alone. Certainly, they advised me they were not going to stick their necks out on such an issue. Further, they were of the opinion that there were far more important matters to worry about.
Important issues
And certainly, there were important issues in my first term as there have been ever since. Issues such as the oppression of the people of East Timor, the Employments Contracts Act, the continuing sale of New Zealand public assets, the high poverty levels for too many New Zealanders and so on.
In my second term as a Minister, I attended even more community functions than I did previously. I noticed how all parties, including my coalition partner Labour, made sure that they were at every major event of and for ethnic communities. Grand speeches were made praising the diversity that ethnic communities brought to New Zealand 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 very lucky not to be in their homeland where supposedly religious bigotry and inter-communal tension were rife.
Sikhs’ visit
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, leaders of the Sikh faith visited me. Sikhs have been in New Zealand since the early nineteenth century. A number of my visitors, unlike me, were 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 as though amplified by the sound system at a rock concert.
We discussed how my visitors, very 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.
Status quo demand
The response was vitriolic. “No way!” said a 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, were of the same opinion. I reminded the National Party MP that many of the ‘they’ were actually born here and that there was no state religion.
Moreover, it seemed to me the Bill of Rights upheld freedom of belief and I thought that Parliament should do the same. I submitted a proposal to review the Prayer to Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee. This was heard recently 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.
Some fears
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 at a future time.
In the present Parliament, we do have people of various beliefs. We certainly have a much greater diversity of beliefs in our community 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.
I do not believe that the House of Representatives is acting constitutionally to do so. It is certainly guilty of the sin of hypocrisy. Nor is it good enough for the Speaker of the House to opine that because he is an Anglican that 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 New Zealand state secondary school, that the assembly is invariably opened with an acknowledgment of the various cultures and beliefs of students and teachers. There is usually a request for tolerance and respect for each other’s beliefs.
On inquiry, I was informed the students had been entrusted with drafting the appropriate words. Similarly, 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.
Matt Robson was a Member of Parliament from 1996 to 2005 and was the Deputy Leader of the then Progressive Alliance Party. He held ministerial positions in the Helen Clark Government (1999 to 2002). The above article, which appeared in our November 1, 2003 issue (Guru Nanak Special), evoked wide discussion in the community. Since then, New Zealand and its Parliament have made significant strides in promoting a multicultural society. Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is currently serving his third term (since 2008) as Member of Parliament on National List. He takes his oath as MP on Guru Granth Sahib.
