http://cynicismcentral.org/node/21
The fallacy of Australian Secularism and the unconstitutionality of House of Representatives and Senate Standing Orders requiring prayers.
This article will be short and to the point as it is a very simple matter. The provisions of the Australian Constitution, House of Representatives and Senate Standing orders are linked and extracted below.
It is beyond dispute, that subject to the Australian Constitution both houses of The Parliament of Australia have the power to make rules for the conduct of business of each house.
Where in any law or regulation, it says that a person “shall” or must do a thing or “shall” refrain from doing or “must not” do a thing, this is known as a mandatory requirement .
That being the case, it states in s116 of the Constitution in part that the “Commonwealth shall not make any law for the establishing of any religion, or for imposing any religious observance......”
It was said by the former Governor General of Australia Justice Deane sitting on the High Court that if something is unconstitutional, you have the right to ignore it (Metwally (1984) 158 CLR at p 477).
I have to ask then, if s38 of the standing orders of the house of reps, and s50 of the senates make it mandatory that the speaker and president of the senate conduct a Christian prayer , and no member, senator or member (subject to a point of order) , or member of the public may object or attempt to obstruct it under the pain of being arrested by either the Serjeant At Arms or Usher of The Black Rod , is that not then an unconstitutional imposition of a religious observance ?
It was said by judges of the High Court in Nationwide News v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 at pp 60,72-74 applying Smithers and Benson (1913) 1 CLR at 108-109, and p 119 that a free citizen:
“Has the right to come to the seat of government and transact any business he has with it , to seek its protection , to share its offices, to engage in the administering of its functions ....”
This has been regarded by the Supreme Court of Qld as a fundamental right (Coleman v Watson , Shaw and The State of Qld [2007] QSC 343 at pars [67]-[68]
http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2007/QSC07-343.pdf
Whether this is a matter that is justiciable by a court can be determined by its effect on the rights of citizens not to be subject to a religious imposition or to be subject to an assault or deprivation of liberty by the parliament for objecting to unconstitutional conduct .
In my view an action could be brought in the Federal Courts original jurisdiction to either have the unconstitutional mandatory requirements for prayers without interruption or objection struck down or to be declared of no force or effect, and or an application for an injunction against both the Serjeant at Arms and Usher of The Black Rod from preventing protest during this occasion, or from preventing senators from objecting or walking out during this occasion.
The Parliamentary Privileges Act and standings orders cannot be at odds with the constitution. The current state of affairs shows any claims that we have to a secular Parliament are false and this is what is projected to the world.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/index.htm
The relevant provisions
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter5.htm
House of Representative Standing and Sessional Orders
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/standos/index.htm
38 Prayers
On taking the Chair at the beginning of each sitting, the Speaker shall read the following prayers:
Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia.
Our Father, which art in Heaven: Hallowed be Thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
Order
60 Order kept by Speaker or Chair
a. The Speaker, or the occupier of the Chair of the House at the time shall keep order in the House.
61 Members to recognise authority of the Speaker
a. If the Speaker stands during a debate, any Member then speaking or seeking the call shall sit down and the House shall be silent, so the Speaker may be heard without interruption.
b. When the Speaker is putting a question no Member may walk out of or across the Chamber.
91 Disorderly conduct
A Member’s conduct shall be considered disorderly if the Member has:
a. persistently and wilfully obstructed the House;
b. used objectionable words, which he or she has refused to withdraw;
c. persistently and wilfully refused to conform to a standing order;
d. wilfully disobeyed an order of the House;
e. persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Speaker; or
f. been considered by the Speaker to have behaved in a disorderly manner.
94 Sanctions against disorderly conduct
The Speaker can take action against disorderly conduct by a Member:
Direction to leave the Chamber
a. The Speaker can direct a disorderly Member to leave the Chamber for one hour. The direction shall not be open to debate or dissent, and if the Member does not leave the Chamber immediately, the Speaker can name the Member under the following procedure.
Member named and suspended
b. The Speaker can name a disorderly Member. Immediately following a naming, on a motion being moved, the Speaker shall put the question—
That the Member be suspended from the service of the House.
The question must be resolved without amendment, adjournment or debate.
Urgent action
c. If the Speaker determines there is an urgent need to protect the dignity of the House, the Speaker can order a grossly disorderly Member to leave the Chamber immediately. When the Member has withdrawn, the Speaker must immediately name the Member and paragraph (b) shall apply; except that the Speaker shall put the question for suspension without a motion being necessary. If the question is resolved in the negative, the Member may return to the Chamber.
Term of suspension
d. If a Member is named and suspended, the term of the suspension shall be:
i. on the first occasion, for the 24 hour period from the time of suspension;
ii. on the second occasion during the same calendar year, for the three consecutive sittings following the day of suspension; and
iii. on a third or later occasion during the same calendar year, for the seven consecutive sittings following the day of suspension.
A suspension in a previous session or an order to withdraw for one hour shall be disregarded in the calculation of these terms.
Exclusion from Chamber and Main Committee
e. A Member who is serving a one hour withdrawal or a suspension for 24 hours or more, shall be excluded from the Chamber, its galleries and the room in which the Main Committee is meeting.
Removal of Member
f. If a Member refuses to follow the Speaker’s direction, the Speaker may order the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the Member from the Chamber or the Main Committee or take the Member into custody.
95 If grave disorder, House suspended or adjourned
In the event of grave disorder occurring in the House, the Speaker, without any question being put, can:
a. suspend the sitting and state the time at which he or she will resume the Chair; or
b. adjourn the House to the next sitting.
96 Serjeant-at-Arms to remove persons
a. If a visitor or person other than a Member disturbs the operation of the Chamber or the Main Committee, the Serjeant-at-Arms can remove the person or take the person into custody.
b. If a visitor or other person is taken into custody by the Serjeant-at-Arms, the Speaker must report this to the House without delay.
Standing Orders of the Senate
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/standing_orders/index.htm
50 Prayer
The President, on taking the chair each day, shall read the following prayer:
Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that Thou wouldst be pleased 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.
Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
175 Conduct of visitors
(1) Visitors may attend, in the galleries provided, a sitting of the Senate.
(2) A person other than a senator, a clerk at the table or an officer attending on the Senate may not:
(a) attend a meeting of the Senate in private session; or
(b) enter any part of the Senate chamber reserved for senators while the Senate is sitting.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply in respect of a senator breastfeeding an infant.
(4) The Usher of the Black Rod shall, subject to any direction by the Senate or the President, take into custody any person who enters any part of the chamber reserved for senators while the Senate is sitting, or causes a disturbance in or near the chamber, and a person so taken into custody shall be discharged out of custody in accordance with an order of the Senate.
184 Order maintained by President
(1) Order shall be maintained in the Senate by the President.
(2) Whenever the President rises during a debate, a senator then speaking or offering to speak shall sit down, and the Senate shall be silent, so that the President may be heard without interruption.
(3) When the President is putting a question a senator shall not walk out of or across the chamber.
185 Conduct of senators
(1) A senator shall acknowledge the chair on entering or leaving the chamber.
(2) A senator shall not pass between the chair and a senator who is speaking, nor between the chair and the table.
(3) A senator on entering the chamber shall take the senator.s place, and shall not stand in any of the passages.
203 Infringement of order
(1) If a senator:
(a) persistently and wilfully obstructs the business of the Senate;
(b) is guilty of disorderly conduct;
(c) uses objectionable words, and refuses to withdraw such words;
(d) persistently and wilfully refuses to conform to the standing orders; or
(e) persistently and wilfully disregards the authority of the chair,
the President may report to the Senate that the senator has committed an offence.
(2) If an offence has been committed by a senator in a committee of the whole, the chairman may suspend the proceedings of the committee and report the offence to the President.
(3) A senator who has been reported as having committed an offence shall attend in the senator.s place and be called upon to make an explanation or apology, and then a motion may be moved that the senator be suspended from the sitting of the Senate. No amendment, adjournment or debate shall be allowed on such a motion, which shall be immediately put by the President.
204 Suspension of senator
(1) The suspension of a senator on the first occasion shall be for the remainder of that day.s sitting, on the second occasion for 7 sitting days, and on the third or any subsequent occasion for 14 sitting days, where such suspensions occur within the same calendar year.
(2) A senator who has been suspended shall not enter the chamber during the period of the suspension. If a senator enters the chamber during the senator.s suspension, the President shall order the Usher of the Black Rod to remove the senator from the chamber.
206 Disobedience of orders
If a senator wilfully disobeys an order of the Senate, that senator may be ordered to attend the Senate and may be taken into custody.
Comments
Politics is very complicated.
Politics is very complicated. It can take turn any where anytime...I always stay away from this..
Interesting opinion on Qld Greens
Moves afoot to counter God's sway over the ballot box
Ross Fitzgerald | April 20, 2009
Article from: The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25356212-7583,00.html
RELIGION may figure strongly at the next federal election. The electorate has had enough of self-opinionated bishops and crazy imams, and many citizens are fed up with the way the main parties bow and scrape to religious groups.
George Pell's recent pronouncement, which supported the Pope's claim that condoms do nothing to stop HIV transmission, puts him in the same league as flat-earthers and creationists. Educated middle-class voters are tired of this anti-intellectual stance from people who are supposed to inhabit the high moral ground. Pell even termed the AIDS epidemic in Africa a "spiritual crisis". Perhaps it's the best he can do to avoid the elephant in the church: child sex abuse.
While the fundamentalist pachyderm in the synagogue is hardly present here, late last year the Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria released a report that claimed Muslim religious leaders were condoning rape within marriage, domestic violence, polygamy, welfare fraud and the exploitation of women. That's the elephant in the mosque.
Yet the ALP and the Coalition still view these key religious groups as somehow above politics. This is because some powerbrokers believe the Sunday school stories about God sitting above the world, therefore his organisers on earth should be accorded the same status. This means religious leaders continue to receive political entree and favours of which other lobby groups only dream.
Australia's religious groups are among the most hard-nosed lobbyists around. Former senator Brian Harradine was the Catholic bishop's main man and one of the most ruthlessly efficient political operators in parliament. Although nowhere near as experienced, the Pentecostal Family First senator from Victoria, Steve Fielding, is trying hard to fit in the shoes of the former "fisherman". Thanks to the present situation in the upper house, Fielding wields quite remarkable power for someone who gained a seat after receiving only 1.62 per cent of the vote.
That neither Labor nor the Coalition has effectively dealt with the power of religious groups has had much to do with the arrival on our political scene of three new parties. All have strong separation of church and state platforms and a take-no-prisoners approach in dealing with religious hypocrisy and cant. They view both main parties as factionally driven and morally compromised by their longstanding relationships with key religious groups. They also see the potential for these qualities to split the Greens, which have a strong feminist left faction, as well as an emerging Green Christian group. Until recently the latter was represented in Queensland parliament where the only sitting Greens member, Ronan Lee, had scored 97 per cent on a Festival of Light survey on social issues.
The first of the three alternative parties is the Liberal Democratic Party, which contested the most recent federal election without much recognition. Small government, civil liberties and personal liberty feature prominently in their platform. One of their organisers, Glenn Drury (now parliamentary liaison to the independents in NSW parliament), was the brain behind the tablecloth ballot paper in the 1999 NSW election. Drury's clever instincts led him to set up a range of extra parties using the same membership base and a complex but brilliant preference scheme. Among minor parties such as the Four-Wheel Drive Party and the Horse Riders Party, he managed to get the Outdoor Recreation Party elected to the Legislative Council.
The second is the Australian Sex Party headed by well-known adult industry lobbyist Fiona Patten, who is widely perceived as being smart and sexy. In 1992 she missed out on a seat in the ACT parliament by a handful of votes. After a recent SBS Insight program where she took the Communications Minister to task over his internet filtering proposals, Stephen Conroy angrily demanded: "Why are you running candidates against us?" It was a telling response from Conroy, who sniffs the electoral landscape far better than he understands the internet.
The Australian Sex Party's policy suite is strong on censorship issues and is soon to include a raft of small business policies. It also includes a call for a royal commission into child sex abuse in our churches and a standardised sex education curriculum for all schools, including religious ones. After Patten launched her new party at Melbourne Sexpo last November, within a couple of months she enrolled 2000 members. This prompted an urgent call from Jim Wallace at the Australian Christian Lobby for the main parties to preference the Sex Party last at the next federal election.
The third is the Secular Party, which is in the process of registering with the Australian Electoral Commission and which is calling for the phrase the "advancement of religion" to be removed from the definition of a charity under the tax act. While many activities religious groups perform are charitable and arguably of public benefit, it is difficult to understand how the advancement of religion is in itself. These days, religion - especially when fundamentalist - reasonably can be argued to be responsible for wars, terrorism, child sex abuse and virulent anti-intellectualism, none of which should be funded by the public purse.
The tax concessions also extend to the commercial enterprises of religions. This can be traced to the 1601 English Statute of Charitable Uses, which entered into common law the presumption that all religious activities are inherently charitable. According to the Secular Party, Australia is one of only three countries that grant tax concessions to the businesses of religious organisations.
The Australian Charitable Purpose Act defines a group or religious order that regularly undertakes prayerful intervention at the request of members of the public as being for public benefit and eligible for tax concessions. These bodies are not required to report a breakdown of their charitable businesses or their investment activities. This is an outrageous slap in the face to the nation's many small businesses, which labour with GST, payroll taxes and other government slugs.
Come next election day, the pooled resources of these parties could form a potentially influential, new voting block in Australia.
If Family First can win a seat in the Senate with 1.62 per cent of the vote, these days anything is possible. If only for their own electoral advantage, Liberal and Labor strategists would be well advised to start talking to the new federal "freedom" parties.
God they're idiots
Nice move from Lee Rhiannon in the NSW Parliament
Motion on Charles Darwin
From: Lee Rhiannon (Lee....@parliament.nsw.gov.au)
Sent: Friday, 13 March 2009 5:48:11 PM
To: Lee Rhiannon (Lee....@parliament.nsw.gov.au)
Hello. Just emailing to let you know what happened in the NSW parliament when I gave notice of a motion to mark the birthday of Charles Darwin and the anniversary of the publication of Origin of the Species. Labor, the Coalition and Fred Nile moved to stop debate. They had the numbers so this quite straight forward motion did not get passed.
The motion is below.
Regards
Lee
------------
156. Ms Rhiannon to move—
1. That this House notes that:
(a) 2009 marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the
publication of “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”,
(b) events are being held around the world to celebrate these anniversaries,
Legislative Council Notice Paper No. 89—Tuesday 24 March 2009
4952
(c) Charles Darwin is one of the most influential British citizens and possibly the most
significant natural historian,
(d) “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” is widely regarded as the most
important biological book ever written,
(e) the work and writings of Charles Darwin changed people’s understanding of the world
and elevated rationality and reason above prejudice and superstition,
(f) Charles Darwin’s work on evolutionary relationships explained the history of life on
earth, and that all life on earth has a common ancestor, and
(g) at a time of unprecedented environmental change Darwin’s work continues to inform our
understanding of the future challenges for humans and the natural world.
2. That this House joins with people across the world in celebrating the anniversary of Charles
Darwin’s birth, the publication of “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” and
the legacy of Darwin’s endeavours.
(Notice given 3 March 2009)
--------------------------------------------------
Lee Rhiannon, MLC
The Greens
Parliament of New South Wales
Macquarie St
Sydney 2000
Tel: +61-2-9230 3551
Fax: +61-2-9230 3550
lee....@parliament.nsw.gov.au
http://www.lee.greens.org.au/
http://www.democracy4sale.org/
Joint motion , Reps and Senate?
Govt, Opposition united in prayer stance
Posted Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:45pm AEDT
Updated Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:52pm AEDT
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/26/2401531.htm
Kevin Rudd believes the prayer is an important tradition that should not be broken. (AAP: Alan Porritt, file photo)
The Federal Government and Opposition have both given the thumbs down to calls to change or abandon the Lord's Prayer recited at the beginning of each day of federal Parliament.
But the Greens want the prayer replaced with a period of reflection and a conscience vote in both houses on the issue.
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Harry Jenkins, has called for a public debate about whether the daily prayer should be rewritten or replaced.
He said the prayer was the most controversial aspect of parliamentary procedure and had been raised with him by MPs and members of the public.
His call has been met with protests from the Australian Christian Lobby and expressions of support for the prayer from Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull.
A spokeswoman for Mr Rudd said the Prime minister viewed the prayer as an important tradition that should not be broken.
"The Lord's Prayer is a long-standing tradition of the Australian Parliament and the Prime Minister believes it should continue," she said.
Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull and Nationals leader Warren Truss issued a joint statement, saying the removal of the prayer would be unacceptable.
The pair said media reports today were the first time the matter had been raised with the Coalition.
"The Lord's Prayer has a very important place in the conduct of the parliamentary program, and ahead of the day's debate and deliberations it provides a non-partisan reaffirmation of our commitment to the common good for the people of Australia," Mr Turnbull and Mr Truss said in the statement.
Greens leader Bob Brown said a period of reflection would be better than the "old fashioned" rote recitation of the prayer.
He wants a conscience vote in both houses on the issue.
"I am repeatedly dismayed that we have people going through prayers by rote about being good to each other then immediately getting into the business of attacking each other in the Senate," Senator Brown said.
"I think it would be better if we had a period of reflection in which people could think about such things as 'will what we are doing today be welcomed by our grandchildren?'
"The matter should be debated and there should be a free vote on it."
Senator Brown said he would discuss moving a joint motion with independent MP, Rob Oakeshott, whom earlier this month used his maiden speech to call for a daily acknowledgement of the Aboriginal owners of the land.
Australian Christian Lobby managing director Jim Wallace said Christianity had had a profound impact on shaping our laws, culture and democracy.
"It's appropriate that we open parliaments with the Lord's Prayer for its cultural and historic relevance," he said.
Australian Federation Of Islamic Councils president Ikebal Patel said the prayer should be non-denominational and include a recognition of the Indigenous owners of the land.
"Any prayer before a session of the Parliament is good but what I would encourage is some words to acknowledge the land we are on, the Indigenous spirituality.
"Acknowledging the many other religions that Australia encompasses certainly, I think, would be a more inclusive prayer," he said.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the Indigenous owners of the land were acknowledged at the opening of Parliament for the year and would be recognised at other official occasions at Parliament House.
- AAP
Bi-partisan unconstitutional activities
Article :Rudd, Turnbull back daily prayer
The Australian 27/10/08
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24555949-2702,00.html
Nicola Berkovic | October 27, 2008
KEVIN Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull both dismissed calls yesterday to replace the Lord's Prayer with an acknowledgement of Australia's traditional Aboriginal owners at the daily opening of federal parliament.
The nation's peak Muslim group and the Greens have backed moves to change the century-old tradition so as to be more inclusive of all Australians.
House of Representatives speaker Harry Jenkins called for debate about whether the prayer should be rewritten or replaced, saying MPs and the public had raised concerns about its relevance to 21st century Australia.
Mr Jenkins' comments followed a maiden speech by Independent MP Rob Oakeshott, in which he said he was surprised and disappointed there was no daily recognition of Aborigines.
Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president Ikebal Patel strongly supported opening parliament each day with an acknowledgement of indigenous Australians or a prayer that was "more universal".
"I have no problem with a Christian prayer -- any prayer is better than no prayer at all," Mr Patel said. "But an acknowledgement of indigenous sentiment and their close connection to the land I think would be a better way to go."
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said a period of reflection would be better than the "old-fashioned" rote recitation of the prayer. He called for a conscience vote in both houses on the issue.
However, the Prime Minister has firmly rejected the idea of dumping the Lord's Prayer, which was first inserted into the standing orders in 1901. "The Lord's Prayer is a long-standing tradition of the Australian Parliament, and the Prime Minister believes it should continue," a spokeswoman for Mr Rudd said.
The move was also opposed by Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull and Nationals Leader Warren Truss, who said the removal of the prayer was "completely unacceptable" and would not receive Coalition support. "The Lord's Prayer ... provides a non-partisan reaffirmation of our commitment to the common good for the people of Australia," they said in a joint statement.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the Senate had debated the issue a few years ago, and the "strong view" was to retain the Lord's Prayer.
John Searle, chairman of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission, which tackles racism and intolerance, backed a daily acknowledgement of Aborigines in Parliament.
"Anything that allows more people to feel included ... is clearly a satisfying move," Mr Searle said.
Additional reporting: AAP
Related Articles In The Australian
http://search.news.com.au/related/id%3Astory%7C24555949/0/Rudd--Turnbull...
Labor God botherers wont let go
The West Australian
Daily Lord's Prayer should remain: Evans
26th October 2008, 13:36 WST
http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=525273
A federal minister has poured cold water on a suggestion the Lord's Prayer may be replaced by an acknowledgment of the traditional owners of the land at the daily opening of parliament in Canberra.
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Harry Jenkins, has called for a public debate about whether or not the daily prayer should be rewritten or replaced.
He said the prayer was the most controversial aspect of parliamentary procedures and had been raised with him by MPs and members of the public.
However, church groups reacted angrily to any suggestion of replacing the Lord's Prayer.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans said on Sunday the indigenous owners of the land were acknowledged at the opening of parliament for the year and would be recognised at other official occasions at Parliament House.
"We had this debate in the Senate a few years ago when there was talk about having a moment's reflection rather than the Lord's Prayer but the strong view among Senators was that the Lord's Prayer ought to remain - I wouldn't expect any change," he told ABC Television.
Senator Evans said he did not think it was uncomfortable for MPs who were not Christians to have to recite the prayer at the beginning of each sitting day.
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said it was the responsibility of the parliament's presiding officers to decide whether the Lord's Prayer needs replacing.
"The House and the Senate have said prayers on a daily basis since federation," Mr Smith told journalists in Perth.
"From time to time there are suggestions we that should ... adopt other mechanisms.
"The Senate formally contemplated a Welcome to Country as a possibility some time ago and decided not to adopt that.
"The parliament this year ... had a formal Welcome to Country and then we have the apology, which I regard as historically very significant, also a very good thing for the parliament and for the nation to do.
"Whether the parliament wants to contemplate different forms is in the first instance a matter for the presiding officers."
AAP