Prayers in Parliament: a chronology

Go to a section

This chronology briefly describes some of the key moments in the history of prayer-reading in the Australian Federal Parliament in order to show how the practice was established and evolved over time. A brief comparison of the current prayer-reading practices in Australian parliaments is also included at Appendix A.

Prayer-reading in Australian parliaments

In July 2022 the desirability of reading prayers at the start of sitting days in Federal Parliament received renewed attention, with Senate President Sue Lines (WA, ALP) calling for the Lord’s Prayer to no longer feature in the Senate:

‘On the one hand we’ve had almost every parliamentary leader applaud the diversity of the parliament and so if we are genuine about the diversity of the parliament, we cannot continue to say a Christian prayer to open the day,’ Senator Lines said.

‘Personally, I would like to see the prayers gone. I’m an atheist. I don’t want to say the prayers. If others want to say the prayers, they’re open to do that.’

All Australian parliaments currently feature some form of Christian prayer/s, generally read at the start of each sitting day—except the ACT Legislative Assembly, which requires the Speaker to invite parliamentarians to ‘pray or reflect’ on their responsibilities as elected representatives (Standing Order 30, pp. 14–15). The most common Christian prayer read is the following version of the Lord’s Prayer:

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.

Section 50 of the Australian Constitution grants each House of the Federal Parliament the power to set rules to regulate their own business, including the power to require prayers be read at the start of each sitting day:

Each House of the Parliament may make rules and orders with respect to:

the mode in which its powers, privileges, and immunities may be exercised and upheld;

the order and conduct of its business and proceedings either separately or jointly with the other House.

Each chamber of Federal Parliament adopts rules to govern their own proceedings, known as Standing Orders (SOs). In the House of Representatives, SO 38 specifies that the Speaker makes an acknowledgement of country first, then reads a parliamentary prayer and the Lord’s Prayer:

Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouch safe 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.

Standing Orders in the Senate recently changed, following the commentary by President Lines. As of the first sitting in October 2022, the President gives an acknowledgement of country first then reads a new statement inviting Senators to pray or reflect before reciting the parliamentary prayer and Lord’s prayer (the acknowledgement of country was previously given after prayers) (SO 50):

Senators, I invite you, as I read the prayer, to pray or reflect in your own way on your responsibilities to the people of Australia and to future generations.

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.

Note the wording of the parliamentary prayer in the Senate differs from the House of Representatives (Reps).

See the Appendix for a list of standing orders, sessional orders and resolutions related to reading prayers for each Australian federal and state/territory parliament.

Chronology of prayer-reading in Federal Parliament

Many arguments have been made over the more than a hundred years that prayers have been read at the start of proceedings in each chamber of the Federal Parliament. Parliamentary prayer-reading was of interest to church groups during the 1890s, which lobbied members of the Australasian Federal Convention (AFC) to enshrine the practice in the Australian Constitution or Standing Orders of Federal Parliament. The AFC ultimately did not determine whether the new Parliament should include prayer-reading, and no mention of the practice was made in the Constitution.

Although Prime Minister Edmund Barton and his Cabinet determined that several different prayers would be read at the opening of the Federal Parliament, prayer-reading was not mentioned in the draft Standing Orders (circulated by Government parliamentarians). However, shortly after the Standing Orders were adopted, they were amended to require prayer-reading at the start of each sitting day in both Houses of Parliament.

Since then, despite several debates and attempts to (partly or entirely) remove the prayers, only relatively minor changes have been made. Concerns and endorsements put forth in the late 19th and early 20th century are often the same sorts of arguments that are repeated today.

The following chronology sets out the establishment of the prayers, attempts to change and retain them and relevant debates in Federal Parliament.

Date (chamber)	Milestones	Source Documents
26 March 1897	Church groups lobby for each sitting day of the Federal Parliament to start with prayers. During the 1890s, colonial church groups across Australia lobbied members of the Australasian Federation Convention (via petitions) for the Constitution or Standing Orders of the Federal Parliament to require that each daily session of both Houses of Federal Parliament begin with prayer by the Presiding Officers or a chaplain (among other requests). On 26 March 1897, Edmund Barton, presented the following petition from 10 members of the Primitive Methodist Church of NSW (emphasis added): That in the preamble of the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth it be recognised that God is the Supreme Ruler of the world, and the ultimate source of all law and authority in nations. That there also be embodied in the said Constitution, or in the standing orders of the Federal Parliament, a provision that each daily session of the Upper and Lowers Houses of the Federal Parliament be opened with a prayer by the President and Speaker, or by a chaplain. That the Governor-General be empowered to appoint days of national thanksgiving and humiliation. Ultimately, the AFC did not include a specific provision for parliamentary prayer-reading in the Australian Constitution, instead leaving the matter for Parliament to determine.	‘Petition [from 10 members of the Primitive Methodist Church of NSW]’, Australasian Federation Council (AFC), 26 March 1897, p. 2.
Mar–Sep 1897	Further petitions received from church groups for parliamentary prayer-reading. Over the following months, identical petitions or those with similar effect were presented to the AFC that were signed by a significant number of other church groups: 2,502 members of the Church of England in the diocese of Sydney 2,145 members of the Presbyterian Church in NSW 794 members of the Congregational Church in NSW 100 members of the St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Bendigo (Vic) Petition from Baptist Church in NSW George Turner presented ‘a petition similar in effect, signed by some 10,000 adults in Victoria’, and shortly thereafter a more specific presentation of ‘a similar petition, signed by 2,264 adults in Victoria’ 1,084 members of the Australasian Wesleyan Methodist Church in NSW 1,500 members of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of NSW 292 adherents of the Primitive Methodist Church of NSW Petition signed by the President and Secretary of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Victoria and Tasmania The following 7 petitions presented by representative for SA, Frederick Holder: – 1,115 members of the Wesleyan Church – 907 members of the Baptist church – 508 members of the Congregational Church – 528 members of the Bible Christian Church – 266 members of the Presbyterian Church – 185 members of the Primitive Methodist Church	‘Petitions’, AFC, 29 March 1897, p. 1. ‘Petitions’, AFC, 30 March 1897, p. 1. ‘Petitions’, AFC, 31 March 1897, p. 1. ‘Petitions’, AFC, 1 April 1897. ‘Petition’, AFC, 2 April 1897. ‘Petitions’, AFC, 6 April 1897. ‘Petitions’, AFC, 7 April 1897. ‘Petitions’, AFC, 3 September 1897. ‘Petitions’, AFC, 6 September 1897.
22 April 1897 and 2 March 1898	Prayer-reading in parliament mentioned at Australasian Federation Convention. Despite the considerable interest from church groups, there was no significant debate or resolution on parliamentary prayer-reading at the AFC. However, during debate on ‘invoking Divine Providence’ being included in the preamble of the Australian Constitution, Adye Douglas, representing Tasmania, argued: Nothing can make religion more ridiculous than to have the form without the substance. Prayers in the House of Commons are a mere farce … We might as well say that all business here or elsewhere should be commenced with prayer. And we might go further and say that we should go on our knees during the prayer. Instead of doing good to persons this would have the opposite effect. Nothing does more harm to religion than to make an outward show of it. The following year, during a discussion about including reference to ‘humbly relying upon the blessing of Almighty God’ in the preamble of the Australian Constitution, Adye Douglas similarly remarked: Do not we all know that it is a mockery that the House of Commons at the present time commences its sittings, day by day, by having prayers read in that assembly? The Speaker of the House of Commons reads the Lord's Prayer before proceedings are commenced, but it has grown into such a farce that nobody attends the House until the prayer is over. Do we want to introduce that system here? … I believe that there are still some legislative assemblies in Australia where they commence the day's proceedings by reading the Lord's Prayer. It was originally done in Tasmania, but it was soon found out to be a perfect piece of mockery, and abandoned … We used to have the Lord's Prayer read in the Legislative Council, but it became a matter of such indifference that the custom was given up.	‘Preamble’, AFC, 22 April 1897, 1186. ‘Commonwealth of Australia Bill’, AFC, 2 March 1898, 1739.
2 May 1901	Federal Cabinet decides Parliament will be opened by prayer read by the Governor-General. Despite media speculation that the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney William Smith would be invited to recite prayer, the Federal Cabinet decides Governor-General Lord Hopetoun would read multiple prayers, immediately after the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York take their seats. The Federal Cabinet decision to include prayers at the opening of Parliament, was reported as follows: It had, Mr Barton stated, been decided that the proceedings at Parliament House should be opened by prayer, to be read by the Governor-General. This, however, only related to the first day, and it would be for Parliament itself to decide what the practice in future should be.	‘The Commonwealth’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 May 1901, 5. ‘Opening of Parliament’, The Age, 3 May 1901, 5.
9 May 1901 (Senate)	Prayers read during the opening of Federal Parliament. At the opening of the new Federal Parliament, the Governor-General read prayers in the Senate, with Members of the House of Representatives gathered, after ‘three verses of the Old Hundredth hymn were sung’. Five prayers were recited during the ceremony, including a parliamentary prayer worded similarly to today’s. We pray thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon the Federal Parliament now assembling for their first session, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who has taught us when we pray to say– 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. The reading of prayers at the opening ceremony occurred prior to the adoption of standing orders by either House. As such, the decision to recite prayers at the opening of Parliament was made by Federal Cabinet, not the Parliament.	‘The Opening of Parliament’, Senate, Debates, 9 May 1901, 5. Form of Prayers to be used at the Opening of the First Parliament of the Commonwealth, Government Printer: Melbourne, 1901 [proof version with edits also available, pp. 37–38].
10 May 1901	Draft standing orders for each House of Parliament presented without mention of prayer-reading. Senator Richard O’Connor (NSW; Protectionist Party) presented the draft standing orders to the Senate and stated: These standing orders have been very carefully prepared from the standing orders of the different States, and I think they will be found to embody everything that is reasonable and practical and satisfactory for the conduct of public business, as disclosed by actual experience in the working of the State Parliaments. There is nothing very new or sensational in them. Prime Minister Edmund Barton (Hunter, NSW; Protectionist Party) presented the House of Representatives draft standing orders and ordered copies be distributed to members. Though the draft standing orders were only presented, not yet adopted, neither document mentioned prayer-reading.	Richard O’Connor, ‘Proposed Standing Orders’, Senate, Debates, 10 May 1901, 31. Edmund Barton, ‘Standing Orders’, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 May 1901, 33. The Senate, Standing Orders Relative to Public Business, 10 May 1901.
21 May 1901 (Reps)	First petitions about parliamentary prayer-reading presented to the House of Representatives. The first petitions to the new parliament related to prayer-reading at the start of each sitting day were tabled—one in support (from the Moderator, and the Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of NSW) and one against (from Mr John Robertson).	‘Petitions’, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 May 1901, 76.
6 June 1901 (Reps)	House of Representatives adopts draft standing orders. The House of Representatives adopts the draft standing orders presented in May that made no mention of prayers.	The House of Representatives, Standing Orders Relative to Public Business [hardcopy version], 1901.
7 June 1901 (Reps)	Motion to include prayer-reading in House of Representatives standing orders passed. After being invited to do so by the Council of Churches, William Knox (Kooyong, Vic; Free Trade) moved a motion in the House of Representatives to amend the Standing Orders to ‘provide that, upon Mr. Speaker taking the chair, he shall read a prayer’. The Council of Churches were trying to ‘secure consideration by Parliament of the need of opening its proceedings by the reading of prayers’, a request Knox felt honoured to accept: I felt that this action might have been properly provided for in the standing orders, but I found that the Government preferred that it should receive a distinct instruction from the House. … I believe that no prayer will have more universal acceptance than the Lord’s Prayer. Prime Minister Barton doubted whether such prayers would lead to the ‘improvement of morality or inculcation of piety’, and questioned if it would be better to pray in private, but conceded (p. 819): I know that a large number of those who have their doubts as to the propriety of these ordinances are not so offended in their religious susceptibilities if they are carried out, as those would be who demand that ordinances of this kind should be observed if their wishes were not complied with. That being so, I am inclined to give way to the course which is least offensive to the religious susceptibilities of the public, and, therefore, to assent to a proposition of this kind. King O’Malley (Tasmania, Tas; ALP), moved an amendment that would require a chaplain to read the prayer but withdrew it, citing a lack of support (p. 819). Knox’s motion eventually passed after some debate, enshrining prayer-reading at the beginning of each sitting day in the House of Representatives. However, the wording of prayers was yet to be established.	‘Prayers’, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 June 1901, 815–21.
13 June 1901 (Reps)	Wording of prayers read in House of Representatives established in the Standing Orders. Prime Minister Barton presented the Standing Orders Committee report, that proposed SO 29a be accepted, which would require specific prayers be read: Upon the Speaker taking the chair each day he shall read the following prayer: Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all our consultations 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. The report was adopted without division or dissent recorded and came into force the next sitting day (14 June).	‘Prayers’, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 June 1901, 1077. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Standing Orders, First Report (re Prayer), 13 June 1901.
14 June 1901 (Senate)	Standing Orders Committee instructed by the Senate to recommend a form of daily prayer. After being invited to do so by the Council of Churches, Senator James Walker (NSW; Free Trade) successfully moved a motion to instruct the Standing Orders Committee to frame a standing order that would require the Senate to open each sitting day with prayer. The President of the Senate, Richard Baker (SA, Free Trade), also informed the Senate that he had personally received several communications, from the Council of Churches and other religious organisations, all supporting the motion.	‘Daily prayer’, Senate, Debates, 14 June 1901, 1136.
14 June 1901 (Senate)	Prayer-reading in parliament debated in Senate. During the debate on a daily prayer in the Senate, Senator Gregor McGregor (SA; ALP) raised concern about the due reverence paid to prayers in an open forum such as parliament: As far as religious observances are concerned, I honour those who carry them out in a legitimate way; but I want to put it to senators—“Is religion to be made a parade of?” … Were not His [God’s] instructions—“Ye, when you pray, go into your closets, that your Father, who seeth in secret, may reward you openly”? Is it following out that teaching to open an institution like this with prayer? Who is going to offer that prayer? Am I to sit here and listen to somebody committing what to my knowledge may be an act of blasphemy, and then think that the Christian religion is being honoured? Further, he raised questions around section 116 of the Australian Constitution: I would like to call your attention to it [s.116], sir, and see if according to section 116, it is within the power of this Chamber to do anything of the kind proposed—to make a parade of religion. Section 116 says that: The Parliament of the Commonwealth shall not impose any new religion, nor any religious observances. 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 than here? However, Senator Frederick Sargood (Vic; Free Trade), counter-argued: He [Senator McGregor] maintains that it is not in the power of the Senate to pass such a standing order as is proposed, and, in support of that view, quotes section 116 of the Constitution Act. The section says:— The Commonwealth shall not make any law A standing order is not a law. A law requires to be made by both Houses of Parliament and the Crown … It goes on to say— for establishing any religion or for imposing any religious observance. I take it that those are the words on which the honourable senator depends, but I would again point out that a standing order is not a law, and therefore I think his argument falls to the ground. Senator George Pearce (WA; ALP) emphasised the need for the prayer to be confined to the Lord’s Prayer, because he believed: … that the principles and precepts contained in the that prayer, even if uttered by atheists, are worthy of the concurrence of honourable senators, and would do no harm, but may possible inculcate into their minds thoughts which will have a beneficial effect on legislation they are passing.	‘Daily prayer’, Senate, Debates, 14 June 1901, 1138.
26 June 1901 (Senate)	The Senate adopts the same prayers as the House of Representatives. The Standing Orders Committee interim report recommended ‘that the prayers adopted by the House of Representatives be adopted by the Senate’. Some debate ensued on the issue that some Senators had not seen the wording of prayers used in the House of Representatives: Senator Sir Frederick SARGOOD (Victoria)—With regard to the first recommendation, I would suggest that the prayers be printed. I have not seen them, and I have not the slightest idea what they are … If we [the Senate] approves this report we are adopting these prayers without having seen them. The PRESIDENT—The prayers are in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, which have been sent to honourable senators. Senator Sir Josiah SYMON (South Australia)—Yes, and we have never seen them. The report was adopted without division or dissent record, establishing prayer-reading in the Senate at the start of each sitting day, which came into effect on the following day. The wording of the prayers were as follows: Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all our consultations to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia. Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed by 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.	‘Standing Orders: Prayers-Chairman of Committees-Quorum’, Senate, Debates, 26 June 1901, 1568–1569, 1578.
10 June 1903 (Senate)	The Senate changes the wording of the parliamentary prayer. The Senate adopted the Standing Orders Committee recommendation to change the wording of the parliamentary prayer (read before the Lord’s prayer), to remove reference to ‘at this time’ and to change ‘all our consultations’ to ‘the work of Thy servants’.	J. R. Odgers, Australian Senate Practice, (Canberra: Australian Parliament, 1953), 60–61.
1 September 1903 (Senate)	Revised parliamentary prayer is read for the first time in the Senate. The revised wording of the parliamentary prayer, as agreed by the Senate in June 1903, came into force. It remains the last change to the wording of the parliamentary prayer that is still read today: 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.	Odgers, Australian Senate Practice, op. cit., 61.
29 July 1909 (Reps)	Request made to change the wording of the parliamentary prayer in the House of Representatives. Frederick Bamford (Herbert, Qld; ALP) asked the newly-appointed Speaker of the House if the wording of the daily prayer for parliament could be altered, from ‘consultations’ to ‘deliberations’: Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all our ~~consultations~~ deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia. [additions in bold] Bamford took exception to the word consultations used in the prayer, ‘seeing that in Australia, at any rate, it has very unhappy associations’. However, the wording of the parliamentary prayer was not changed at this time.	Frederick Bamford, ‘Wording of prayer’, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 July 1909, 1784–85.
23 May 1918 (Reps)	Request made for an extra prayer for WWI in the House of Representatives. Hector Lamond (Illawarra, NSW; Nationalist Party) asked the acting Prime Minister: whether he will consider the advisableness of adding to the prayer used at the opening of the sittings of the House a supplication for the soldiers and sailors engaged in the war?	Hector Lamond, ‘Prayer in Parliament’, Debates, House of Representatives, 23 May 1918, 5025.
24 May 1918 (Reps)	Request made to change the wording of the parliamentary prayer in the House of Representatives. Frederick Bamford again requests that the word ‘consultations’ is changed to ‘deliberations’ in the parliamentary prayer: Yesterday a question was asked regarding the prayer with which our proceedings are opened each day, and it was suggested that an addition should be made to the form of words used. On several occasions in the past I have suggested that the wording of the prayer should be amended, by the substitution of the word "deliberations" for the word "consultations," which, in Australia, has a meaning altogether dissociated from prayer. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, when the Standing Orders Committee is considering the alteration of the prayer, consideration can be given to my suggestion? Speaker Elliot Johnson (Lang, NSW; Nationalist Party) responded that he should ‘be very glad to do what he [Bamford] desires’.	‘Opening prayer’, Debates, House of Representatives, 24 May 1918, 5109–5110.
29 May 1918 (Reps)	House of Representatives changes the wording of the parliamentary prayer and adds an extra prayer for WWI. SO 29a was amended, by recommendation of the Standing Committee on Standing Orders, to change the wording of the parliamentary prayer to: Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee ~~at this time~~ to vouchsafe Thy ~~special~~ blessing upon this Parliament. ~~and that Thou wouldst be pleased to~~ Direct and prosper ~~all~~ our ~~consultations~~ deliberations, to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia. [additions in bold] The following additional prayer was also added to the standing orders, to be read before the Lord’s Prayer during the continuance of the War (WWI): Strengthen, O Lord, the sailors and soldiers of our Commonwealth, our Empire, and our Allies; protect them from all dangers; give them speedy victory over their enemies; and grant that an honourable and a lasting peace may result from their valour and their sacrifices. Frank Brennan (Batman, Vic; ALP) emphasised: I would welcome an amendment of the Standing Orders which would permit us to offer up a prayers for peace, but I would ask that that prayer be offered up in the Christian spirit, and not in any pagan spirit … I oppose any amendment to the Standing Orders which will alter the prayer offered up in this House at the commencements of our deliberations in any direction which is not consistent with the faith of the great majority of honourable members of this Chamber, namely, the Christian faith.	‘The opening prayer’, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 May 1918, 5188–5192.
24 July 1919 (Reps)	House of Representatives debates wording of the prayer for WWI. Albert Palmer (Echuca, Vic; Nationalist Party) suggested to the Speaker: … do you not think it is somewhat out of place for us to continue to importune the Almighty to grant us peace when a peace that is highly satisfactory to the Empire has already been secured. Speaker Elliot Johnson responded: Since the declaration of peace, certain deletions have been made from the form of prayer which was drawn up by a Committee appointed to go into the matter; but if honourable members consider that further revision is necessary, I shall give it consideration. I would, however, draw special attention to the wording of that part of the prayer to which the honourable member refers, and which, to my mind, does not call for immediate alteration, since what we ask for is a “lasting peace.” We pray— Strengthen, O Lord, the soldiers and sailors of our Commonwealth, our Empire, and our Allies. That, I think, is a supplication that we can at all times make. The succeeding sentence— Protect them from all dangers; give them speedy victory over their enemies, Is not now read, but is seems to me that the concluding sentence— and grant that an honourable and lasting peace may result from their valour and their sacrifices, is a prayer that will apply for all time. Though the wartime prayer was stipulated to be read for the continuance of WWI, it is not clear what date it actually discontinued.	‘Form of prayer’, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 July 1919, 10938–10939.
17 September 1953 (Reps)	Speaker confirms members can recite Lord’s Prayer with him. Upon being asked by James Fraser (Australian Capital Territory, ACT; ALP) whether MPs could recite the Lord’s Prayer with the Speaker, Archie Cameron (Barker, SA; Liberal Country League), replied: The Standing Orders provide that the Speaker shall read certain prayers upon taking the chair at each sitting. There is nothing to say that honorable members shall or shall not join in repeating the “Our Father” if they wish to do so. From my nineteen years of experience in this House, I think that it might be an excellent beginning to each sitting if they did so.	‘The Parliament’, Debates, House of Representatives, 17 September 1953, 316.
28 May 1969 (Reps)	Speaker confirms members can recite Lord’s Prayer with him. William Arthur (Barton, NSW; Lib.), asked the Speaker: A number of members of the House feel that the opening prayers each day would mean more to them if they were able to repeat the Lord's Prayer with you. I ask whether we may have your permission to do this and thus add to the personal and corporate commitment of the House. Speaker William Aston (Phillip, NSW; Lib.) stated he would be very pleased if Members joined in reciting the Lord’s Prayer, though he emphasised that it would be for each individual member to decide.	‘Prayers’, Debates, House of Representatives, 28 May 1969, 2318.
20 March 1972 (Reps)	Standing Orders Committee recommends no change to prayer-reading procedure in House of Representatives. Doug Everingham (Capricornia, Qld; ALP) wrote to the Standing Orders Committee proposing that prayers read once a week would suffice and suggested ‘a more universally acceptable and relevant formula’, specifically: Fellow members of one race, let us ever strive for closer understanding, respect and harmony between the earth's peoples and their chosen spokesmen, to their greater spiritual, social and personal welfare, and let us save and cherish other forms of life and nature in our global village. Amen. The Standing Orders Committee recommended that there should be ‘no change either in the frequency of offering prayers or in their content’.	House of Representatives Standing Orders Committee, Report together with recommendations (Canberra: House of Representatives, 1972), 13 and Appendix D.
27 June 1996 (Senate)	Outgoing Senate President calls for prayer-reading to be abolished. In a speech to the chamber, President of the Senate Michael Beahan (WA; ALP) stated: I believe the Prayers in our standing orders are an archaic and anachronistic form of words that really should be changed. I believe that the South Africans have the best idea with a minute's contemplative silence. That appeals to all faiths, or non-faiths. Or you could have an evocative poem, or something like that.	Michael Beahan, ‘Valedictories’, Senate, Debates, 27 June 1996.
21 August 1996 (Senate)	Newly-elected President of the Senate confirms senators can recite Lord’s Prayer with her. The Senate President, Margaret Reid (ACT; Lib), reported to the chamber: some senators have asked if I would have any objection to their saying the Lord's Prayer with me. I have no objection and, if any senator wishes to, he or she may do so.	Margaret Reid, ‘Prayers’, Debates, Senate, 21 August 1996, 2737.
30 October 1997 (Senate)	Senate Procedure Committee investigates proposal to replace prayers with an invitation to pray or reflect in silence. Senator Bob Brown (Tas; Greens) successfully moved a motion that instructed the Senate Procedure Committee to hold an inquiry and consult with all senators on his proposed amendments to SO 50. The proposed amendments were, namely, that the daily prayers read in the Senate be replaced with the following statement: Senators, let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to the people of Australia, to the States and Territories which we represent, and to all future generations.	Bob Brown, ‘Procedure Committee: Reference’, Senate, Debates, 30 October 1997, 8418.
November 1997 (Senate)	Senate Procedure Committee recommends no change to prayers read in the Senate. The Senate Procedure Committee received responses from ‘some senators’, after the committee directed a circular letter to all senators asking for their views on the proposed amendments to SO 50. The Procedure Committee’s report on the matter stated: It is clear that many senators who join in the prayer regard its retention as important, but among those who do not join in the prayer there does not appear to be a strong view that its proposed abolition is a significant question which should occupy the time of the Senate. Having considered the views of those senators who responded and of its members, the committee does not recommend any change to the standing order.	Senate Standing Committee on Procedure, Second Report of 1997 (Canberra, The Senate, 1997), 4–5.
26 November 1997 (Senate)	Senate debates Procedure Committee’s recommendation to retain prayer-reading practice. During the debate on the Procedure Committee’s second report of 1997, Senator Brian Harradine (Tas; Ind) stated: Standing order No. 50 provides for the President of the Senate to open each parliamentary day with a public prayer to God for guidance, with the Lord's Prayer to follow. Senator [Bob] Brown proposed that the public prayer to God be abolished. I am very pleased to see that the Procedure Committee has recommended against that motion. At this time of all times we need the guidance of God and that is what standing order No. 50 has us doing … The Prayer for Guidance [parliamentary prayer] and the Lord's Prayer, publicly recited by the President on behalf of senators, is a humble, public acknowledgment that parliament itself is subject to a higher law; that unjust and immoral laws are unjust and immoral, even if correct procedures are followed. The Our Father is as close to a universal prayer as exists in human culture. All religions accept the existence of a guiding, benevolent influence in human affairs if only we hand control of our destiny to the Creator. Given our heritage and history, it is entirely appropriate that we symbolise this in the public recital of the Our Father. The preamble to the Australian constitution itself also declares our intention of: ... humbly relying on the blessing of the almighty God … To be secular is one thing; to seek to deliberately and publicly expunge recited prayer in the Senate is quite another. Senator Harradine also suggested modernising the wording of prayers read: Perhaps there needs to be a minor change in words in there and in the Lord's Prayer, because the Prayer for Guidance says: 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. 'Vouchsafe' is not commonly used and I would have thought a word such as 'grant' would do equally as well. The Lord's Prayer starts with: Our father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed by thy name. I would have thought that 'who' might be more appropriate there. I foreshadow that, at some future time, I will be moving to have the word 'grant' for 'vouchsafe' and the word 'who' for 'which'. On the matter of prayer-reading in the Senate, Senator Bob Brown, stated: This is a matter that has attracted some public attention. It has been discussed by the churches. There has been criticism from Catholic bishops, for example. However, there has been quite strong and positive feedback, and alternatives have been put forward to me by other clergy and by members of the interested public. Senator Brown also flagged he would continue to pursue changing SO 50.	‘Procedure Committee: Report’, Senate, Debates, 26 November 1997, 9518–9520.
27 November 1997 (Senate)	Motion to replace prayers with an invitation to pray or reflect in silence rejected in the Senate. Senator Bob Brown attempted to replace the parliamentary prayer and Lord’s prayer under SO 50 with the following statement: Senators, let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to the people of Australia, to the States and Territories which we represent, and to all future generations. The motion was negatived. Though no formal vote (division) was held, Senator Brown and Senator Dee Margetts (WA; Greens) were the only senators recorded in support of the motion.	‘Prayer: Standing Order 50: Proposed Amendment’, Senate, Debates, 21 November 1997.
17 March 2005 (Senate)	Senator calls for prayers in parliament to continue. During a speech to the Senate on the Lord’s Prayer in Parliament, Senator Santo Santoro (Qld; Lib) stated: I am firmly of the belief that the prayer should guide the proceedings of the Senate and that, for all the secularity of today’s Australia, our culture and our very ethos is grounded in the Christian principles that gave birth to modern democracy. I see nothing wrong with that and I do not see why anyone should. … it is worth noting that in 1901, the year in which our Constitution established the Commonwealth of Australia and its legislature, more than 96 per cent of the population was Christian. Of this overwhelming proportion, 40 per cent identified themselves as Church of England, 23 per cent as Catholic and the two other large groups, Methodists and Presbyterians, made up 13 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. That was the solid Christian foundation on which prayers came to be said in our parliament. It was from this that Australia drew and continues to draw both its egalitarian tradition and practice and its status as a nation of faith.	Santo Santoro, ‘The Lord’s Prayer in Parliament’, Senate, Debates, 17 March 2005.
13 February 2014 (Senate)	Motion to establish an inquiry into changing prayers rejected in the Senate. Senator Richard Di Natale (Vic; Greens), moved the motion: That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report: That consideration be given to amending section 50 of the standing orders to replace the prayer with the following: 'Senators, let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to the people of Australia, to the states and territories which we represent, and to all future generations.' Senator Claire Moore (Qld; ALP) cited the reason the ALP did not support the motion was because a review of all parliamentary procedure was underway, and therefore expected ‘that the issues raised would be a natural part of that committee process’. After the motion was negatived without division or dissent recorded, Senator Di Natale stated: I am flagging now that Senator Siewert, who is the Greens' representative on the Procedure Committee, will be raising this issue specifically with the Procedure Committee. We are doing this because we live in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state. We live in a country of many different faiths—in fact, a country where many people have no faith—and a modern Australian parliament should reflect that. We do say that there should be some opportunity for reflection or, indeed, prayer, if people feel that way, and that is why we would like to see a minute at the start of each day in this place being offered for that reason.	‘Procedure Committee: Reference’, Senate, Debates, 13 February 2014.
27 June 2018 (Senate)	Senate Committee inquiry into replacing prayers with an invitation to pray or reflect in silence established. Senator Lee Rhiannon (NSW; Greens), successfully moved a motion that proposed amendments to SO 50 be referred to the Senate Procedure Committee. Specifically, Senator Rhiannon sought to replace the parliamentary prayer and Lord’s prayer with the statement: Senators, let us, in silence, pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to all people of Australia, and to future generations. Further, that the Procedure Committee: (a) consult with all senators; (b) have the power to send for persons and documents, to move from place to place, and to meet and transact business in public or private sessions; and (c) invite submissions and take evidence in public session. After a formal vote (division), the motion passed. 34 senators voted in support of the motion: ALP, Greens, Centre Alliance, Liberal Democratic Party, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party and Independent, Tim Storer. 30 senators voted against the motion: Coalition, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON), Australian Conservatives, Katter’s Australia Party, United Australia Party (UAP).	‘Procedure Committee: Reference’, Senate, Debates, 27 June 2018.
2018 (Senate)	Senate Committee recommends no change to prayer-reading practice. After the inquiry took place, the Senate Procedure Committee stated in its final report: The committee does not consider, on the evidence before it and after its own deliberations, that there is a momentum for change. The committee therefore does not recommend that the amendments proposed in the reference should be adopted. In reaching this conclusion, the committee also considered whether an invitation to personal prayer or reflection could be inserted alongside the current prayer. The committee did not reach a conclusion on this question, but notes that the Senate could achieve this by inserting a preamble to the traditional prayer along the following lines: Senators, I invite you, as I read the prayer, to pray or reflect in your own way on your responsibilities to the people of Australia and to future generations. As has been observed elsewhere, for the most part it remains a personal matter for senators whether to attend for the prayer, or join in the prayer, at the start of sittings. One exception, of course, is that the standing order requires the President to be present to read the prayer. The committee notes that some jurisdictions provide the option of the presiding officer inviting another member to read the prayer. The Senate may wish to consider whether that option should be made available through a change to the standing orders. Again, the committee makes no recommendation on this matter. A dissenting report by the Australian Greens was also published, stating: The Australian Greens firmly believe that the current prayer, which has been read each sitting day since 1901, is outdated and no longer reflective of Australia’s religiously diverse and secular society.	Senate Standing Committee on Procedure, Proposal to replace the parliamentary prayer (Canberra: The Senate, 2018). Australian Greens, Dissenting Report, Senate Standing Committee on Procedure (Canberra: The Senate, 2018).
13 September 2018 (Senate)	Senate debates Committee’s recommendation to not change prayer-reading practice. The Deputy President of the Senate and Chair of the Procedure Committee, Senator Sue Lines (WA; ALP), presented the Committee’s second report of 2018 to the chamber and noted: The committee received approximately 820 submissions, the vast majority of which did not support replacing the prayer … The submissions made on this occasion and the views of the committee members and their colleagues suggest the opinions are not significantly different in 2018 than they were during the 1997 inquiry. Those in favour of the prayer strongly favour its retention, whilst those opposed are less vocal and less concerned to see it changed. Senator Di Natale gave a statement in relation to the dissenting report from the Greens on the matter: Our proposal is a very straightforward one. It's one where we invite people to prayer or reflection, but in silence. Basically, we put forward a proposal where we could use the opening statement that's read at the start of each day in the Legislative Assembly of the ACT. That procedure was adopted back in 1995, and not a moment too soon. To summarise: our recommendation is that as a parliament we no longer begin each day with the Lord's Prayer—something that is inconsistent with a modern multicultural, multifaith democracy—and instead we recommend that the requirement for prayer under standing order 50 be replaced with an invitation to prayer or reflection. That could be done in silence, it would be a much more inclusive gesture and it would reflect the breadth of views right across the Australian community.	‘Senate Procedure Committee: Report’, Senate, Debates, 13 September 2018, 6376–6377.
3 April 2019 (Senate)	Senator calls for prayers in parliament to continue. In her first speech to Parliament, Senator Wendy Askew (Tas; Lib) stated: Our system of government and laws is based on Judeo-Christian principles, and we begin the day's proceedings with a Christian prayer. Senators do not have to say the prayer or even be present in the chamber when it's said. There is no compulsion, but it has been a part of our parliamentary proceedings since the first meeting in 1901. There has been a proposal in Victoria to abolish the Lord's Prayer in that parliament. It was made by a minor party in that state's upper house. I want to place on record that it seems to me to be a particularly poorly timed proposal in the wake of the awful events in Christchurch. A response to intolerance should never, logically, be more intolerance. We respect those of all faiths who have come to Australia, or indeed those of no faith, just as we respect Australians born here according to their creed or belief. I have never heard one leader of a non-Christian faith call for the abolition of the Lord's Prayer in our parliament. These suggestions always come from other quarters, and, as I say, when unpacked, aren't at their core really about inclusion at all—quite the opposite.	Wendy Askew, ‘First speech’, Debates, Senate, 3 April 2019, 933.
July 2022 (Senate)	Newly-elected Senate President calls for end to parliamentary prayers. President of the Senate Sue Lines was quoted in the media as stating: “Personally, I would like to see the prayers gone. I’m an atheist. I don’t want to say the prayers. If others want to say the prayers, they’re open to do that. “Personally I would like to see them gone but again it’s not something I can decree. It’s a view of the Senate.” Senator Lines said the abolition of the Lord’s Prayer was “certainly on the agenda” and would be raised with the Senate procedure committee, which considers any matter relating to procedures referred to it by the chamber or the president.	Rosie Lewis and Alice Workman, ‘Atheist Senate chief wants prayers gone’, The Australian, 28 July 2022
1 August 2022 (Senate)	Senate debates prayer-reading in parliament. Senator Jonno Duniam (Tas; Lib), stated: It's passing strange that, in a world like the one we're living in today, with all of the challenges households and businesses face, we'd be debating something at least in the public domain like the prayers said at the beginning of any parliamentary session. But, now it's up for debate, I'm going to put on record my personal views around the prayer, and as a Christian I'm very proud to be doing so. As we know, of course, participation in the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of any session of parliament and on any sitting day is a voluntary thing. It's something I encourage others to do, but, certainly, as I say, as with all commencement proceedings it is voluntary; it is not compulsory. … On behalf of the Australians who elect us to come here and to represent them, we have to get the job right. So, to that end, asking God to help us can't be a bad thing, in my view, and I wouldn't have thought that, even to atheists, it would it be a bad thing. Senator Mehreen Faruqi (NSW; Greens), stated: This parliament is more diverse than ever: more First Nations people, more people of colour and more women. Australia is changing … If we are genuine about saying to the community that parliament is a place that welcomes people from every race, faith and culture, then its systems and norms, which purport to represent the community, must change. How can we continue to open our daily business with the Lord's Prayer? … Our parliament should be modern and secular, so let's stop pretending that we are a white Christian monocultural society. We are not. We never were. We must shed the shackles of colonialism. Racism, the oath to the British monarch and the reading of the Lord's Prayer to start our day have no place in here.	‘Australian Parliament’, Senate, Debates, 1 August 2022, 276–277.
28 September 2022 (Senate)	An invitation to pray or reflect is given before prayers are read in the Senate. On behalf of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Katy Gallagher (ACT; ALP), Senator Anthony Chisholm (Qld; ALP), successfully moved a motion that amended Senate SO 50 to include the statement preceding the reading of the existing prayers: Senators, I invite you, as I read the prayer, to pray or reflect in your own way on your responsibilities to the people of Australia and to future generations. The amendment also included swapping the order of the prayers and acknowledgement of country, so that the acknowledgement of country is read first (in line with House of Representatives practice). ALP, Greens, and Jacquie Lambie Network senators, and Independent David Pocock voted in support of the change. Coalition, PHON and UAP senators voted against the motion. The amendments took effect from the first sitting day in October 2022 (Tuesday 25th).	‘Senate standing orders’, Senate, Debates, 28 September 2022.

Date (chamber)

Milestones

Source Documents

26 March 1897

Church groups lobby for each sitting day of the Federal Parliament to start with prayers.

During the 1890s, colonial church groups across Australia lobbied members of the Australasian Federation Convention (via petitions) for the Constitution or Standing Orders of the Federal Parliament to require that each daily session of both Houses of Federal Parliament begin with prayer by the Presiding Officers or a chaplain (among other requests).

On 26 March 1897, Edmund Barton, presented the following petition from 10 members of the Primitive Methodist Church of NSW (emphasis added):

That in the preamble of the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth it be recognised that God is the Supreme Ruler of the world, and the ultimate source of all law and authority in nations.
That there also be embodied in the said Constitution, or in the standing orders of the Federal Parliament, a provision that each daily session of the Upper and Lowers Houses of the Federal Parliament be opened with a prayer by the President and Speaker, or by a chaplain.
That the Governor-General be empowered to appoint days of national thanksgiving and humiliation.

Ultimately, the AFC did not include a specific provision for parliamentary prayer-reading in the Australian Constitution, instead leaving the matter for Parliament to determine.

‘Petition [from 10 members of the Primitive Methodist Church of NSW]’, Australasian Federation Council (AFC), 26 March 1897, p. 2.

Mar–Sep 1897

Further petitions received from church groups for parliamentary prayer-reading.

Over the following months, identical petitions or those with similar effect were presented to the AFC that were signed by a significant number of other church groups:

2,502 members of the Church of England in the diocese of Sydney
2,145 members of the Presbyterian Church in NSW
794 members of the Congregational Church in NSW
100 members of the St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Bendigo (Vic)
Petition from Baptist Church in NSW
George Turner presented ‘a petition similar in effect, signed by some 10,000 adults in Victoria’, and shortly thereafter a more specific presentation of ‘a similar petition, signed by 2,264 adults in Victoria’
1,084 members of the Australasian Wesleyan Methodist Church in NSW
1,500 members of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of NSW
292 adherents of the Primitive Methodist Church of NSW
Petition signed by the President and Secretary of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Victoria and Tasmania
The following 7 petitions presented by representative for SA, Frederick Holder:

–      1,115 members of the Wesleyan Church
–      907 members of the Baptist church
–      508 members of the Congregational Church
–      528 members of the Bible Christian Church
–      266 members of the Presbyterian Church
–      185 members of the Primitive Methodist Church

‘Petitions’, AFC, 29 March 1897, p. 1.

‘Petitions’, AFC, 30 March 1897, p. 1.

‘Petitions’, AFC, 31 March 1897, p. 1.

‘Petitions’, AFC, 1 April 1897.

‘Petition’, AFC, 2 April 1897.

‘Petitions’, AFC, 6 April 1897.

‘Petitions’, AFC, 7 April 1897.

‘Petitions’, AFC, 3 September 1897.

‘Petitions’, AFC, 6 September 1897.

22 April 1897 and 2 March 1898

Prayer-reading in parliament mentioned at Australasian Federation Convention.

Despite the considerable interest from church groups, there was no significant debate or resolution on parliamentary prayer-reading at the AFC.

However, during debate on ‘invoking Divine Providence’ being included in the preamble of the Australian Constitution, Adye Douglas, representing Tasmania, argued:

Nothing can make religion more ridiculous than to have the form without the substance. Prayers in the House of Commons are a mere farce … We might as well say that all business here or elsewhere should be commenced with prayer. And we might go further and say that we should go on our knees during the prayer. Instead of doing good to persons this would have the opposite effect. Nothing does more harm to religion than to make an outward show of it.

The following year, during a discussion about including reference to ‘humbly relying upon the blessing of Almighty God’ in the preamble of the Australian Constitution, Adye Douglas similarly remarked:

Do not we all know that it is a mockery that the House of Commons at the present time commences its sittings, day by day, by having prayers read in that assembly? The Speaker of the House of Commons reads the Lord's Prayer before proceedings are commenced, but it has grown into such a farce that nobody attends the House until the prayer is over. Do we want to introduce that system here?
…
I believe that there are still some legislative assemblies in Australia where they commence the day's proceedings by reading the Lord's Prayer. It was originally done in Tasmania, but it was soon found out to be a perfect piece of mockery, and abandoned … We used to have the Lord's Prayer read in the Legislative Council, but it became a matter of such indifference that the custom was given up.

‘Preamble’, AFC, 22 April 1897, 1186.

‘Commonwealth of Australia Bill’, AFC, 2 March 1898, 1739.

2 May 1901

Federal Cabinet decides Parliament will be opened by prayer read by the Governor-General.

Despite media speculation that the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney William Smith would be invited to recite prayer, the Federal Cabinet decides Governor-General Lord Hopetoun would read multiple prayers, immediately after the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York take their seats.

The Federal Cabinet decision to include prayers at the opening of Parliament, was reported as follows:

It had, Mr Barton stated, been decided that the proceedings at Parliament House should be opened by prayer, to be read by the Governor-General. This, however, only related to the first day, and it would be for Parliament itself to decide what the practice in future should be.

‘The Commonwealth’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 May 1901, 5.

‘Opening of Parliament’, The Age, 3 May 1901, 5.

9 May 1901

(Senate)

Prayers read during the opening of Federal Parliament.

At the opening of the new Federal Parliament, the Governor-General read prayers in the Senate, with Members of the House of Representatives gathered, after ‘three verses of the Old Hundredth hymn were sung’.

Five prayers were recited during the ceremony, including a parliamentary prayer worded similarly to today’s.

We pray thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon the Federal Parliament now assembling for their first session, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who has taught us when we pray to say–

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.

The reading of prayers at the opening ceremony occurred prior to the adoption of standing orders by either House. As such, the decision to recite prayers at the opening of Parliament was made by Federal Cabinet, not the Parliament.

‘The Opening of Parliament’, Senate, Debates, 9 May 1901, 5.

Form of Prayers to be used at the Opening of the First Parliament of the Commonwealth, Government Printer: Melbourne, 1901 [proof version with edits also available, pp. 37–38].

10 May 1901

Draft standing orders for each House of Parliament presented without mention of prayer-reading.

Senator Richard O’Connor (NSW; Protectionist Party) presented the draft standing orders to the Senate and stated:

These standing orders have been very carefully prepared from the standing orders of the different States, and I think they will be found to embody everything that is reasonable and practical and satisfactory for the conduct of public business, as disclosed by actual experience in the working of the State Parliaments. There is nothing very new or sensational in them.

Prime Minister Edmund Barton (Hunter, NSW; Protectionist Party) presented the House of Representatives draft standing orders and ordered copies be distributed to members.

Though the draft standing orders were only presented, not yet adopted, neither document mentioned prayer-reading.

Richard O’Connor, ‘Proposed Standing Orders’, Senate, Debates, 10 May 1901, 31.

Edmund Barton, ‘Standing Orders’, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 May 1901, 33.

The Senate, Standing Orders Relative to Public Business, 10 May 1901.

21 May 1901

(Reps)

First petitions about parliamentary prayer-reading presented to the House of Representatives.

The first petitions to the new parliament related to prayer-reading at the start of each sitting day were tabled—one in support (from the Moderator, and the Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of NSW) and one against (from Mr John Robertson).

‘Petitions’, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 May 1901, 76.

6 June 1901

(Reps)

House of Representatives adopts draft standing orders.

The House of Representatives adopts the draft standing orders presented in May that made no mention of prayers.

The House of Representatives, Standing Orders Relative to Public Business [hardcopy version], 1901.

7 June 1901

(Reps)

Motion to include prayer-reading in House of Representatives standing orders passed.

After being invited to do so by the Council of Churches, William Knox (Kooyong, Vic; Free Trade) moved a motion in the House of Representatives to amend the Standing Orders to ‘provide that, upon Mr. Speaker taking the chair, he shall read a prayer’.

The Council of Churches were trying to ‘secure consideration by Parliament of the need of opening its proceedings by the reading of prayers’, a request Knox felt honoured to accept:

I felt that this action might have been properly provided for in the standing orders, but I found that the Government preferred that it should receive a distinct instruction from the House.
…
I believe that no prayer will have more universal acceptance than the Lord’s Prayer.

Prime Minister Barton doubted whether such prayers would lead to the ‘improvement of morality or inculcation of piety’, and questioned if it would be better to pray in private, but conceded (p. 819):

I know that a large number of those who have their doubts as to the propriety of these ordinances are not so offended in their religious susceptibilities if they are carried out, as those would be who demand that ordinances of this kind should be observed if their wishes were not complied with. That being so, I am inclined to give way to the course which is least offensive to the religious susceptibilities of the public, and, therefore, to assent to a proposition of this kind.

King O’Malley (Tasmania, Tas; ALP), moved an amendment that would require a chaplain to read the prayer but withdrew it, citing a lack of support (p. 819).

Knox’s motion eventually passed after some debate, enshrining prayer-reading at the beginning of each sitting day in the House of Representatives. However, the wording of prayers was yet to be established.

‘Prayers’, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 June 1901, 815–21.

13 June 1901

(Reps)

Wording of prayers read in House of Representatives established in the Standing Orders.

Prime Minister Barton presented the Standing Orders Committee report, that proposed SO 29a be accepted, which would require specific prayers be read:

Upon the Speaker taking the chair each day he shall read the following prayer:

Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all our consultations 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.

The report was adopted without division or dissent recorded and came into force the next sitting day (14 June).

‘Prayers’, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 June 1901, 1077.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Standing Orders, First Report (re Prayer), 13 June 1901.

14 June 1901

(Senate)

Standing Orders Committee instructed by the Senate to recommend a form of daily prayer.

After being invited to do so by the Council of Churches, Senator James Walker (NSW; Free Trade) successfully moved a motion to instruct the Standing Orders Committee to frame a standing order that would require the Senate to open each sitting day with prayer.

The President of the Senate, Richard Baker (SA, Free Trade), also informed the Senate that he had personally received several communications, from the Council of Churches and other religious organisations, all supporting the motion.

‘Daily prayer’, Senate, Debates, 14 June 1901, 1136.

14 June 1901

(Senate)

Prayer-reading in parliament debated in Senate.

During the debate on a daily prayer in the Senate, Senator Gregor McGregor (SA; ALP) raised concern about the due reverence paid to prayers in an open forum such as parliament:

As far as religious observances are concerned, I honour those who carry them out in a legitimate way; but I want to put it to senators—“Is religion to be made a parade of?”
…
Were not His [God’s] instructions—“Ye, when you pray, go into your closets, that your Father, who seeth in secret, may reward you openly”? Is it following out that teaching to open an institution like this with prayer? Who is going to offer that prayer? Am I to sit here and listen to somebody committing what to my knowledge may be an act of blasphemy, and then think that the Christian religion is being honoured?

Further, he raised questions around section 116 of the Australian Constitution:

I would like to call your attention to it [s.116], sir, and see if according to section 116, it is within the power of this Chamber to do anything of the kind proposed—to make a parade of religion. Section 116 says that:
The Parliament of the Commonwealth shall not impose any new religion, nor any religious observances.
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 than here?

However, Senator Frederick Sargood (Vic; Free Trade), counter-argued:

He [Senator McGregor] maintains that it is not in the power of the Senate to pass such a standing order as is proposed, and, in support of that view, quotes section 116 of the Constitution Act. The section says:—
The Commonwealth shall not make any law
A standing order is not a law. A law requires to be made by both Houses of Parliament and the Crown … It goes on to say—
for establishing any religion or for imposing any religious observance.
I take it that those are the words on which the honourable senator depends, but I would again point out that a standing order is not a law, and therefore I think his argument falls to the ground.

Senator George Pearce (WA; ALP) emphasised the need for the prayer to be confined to the Lord’s Prayer, because he believed:

… that the principles and precepts contained in the that prayer, even if uttered by atheists, are worthy of the concurrence of honourable senators, and would do no harm, but may possible inculcate into their minds thoughts which will have a beneficial effect on legislation they are passing.

‘Daily prayer’, Senate, Debates, 14 June 1901, 1138.

26 June 1901

(Senate)

The Senate adopts the same prayers as the House of Representatives.

The Standing Orders Committee interim report recommended ‘that the prayers adopted by the House of Representatives be adopted by the Senate’. Some debate ensued on the issue that some Senators had not seen the wording of prayers used in the House of Representatives:

Senator Sir Frederick SARGOOD (Victoria)—With regard to the first recommendation, I would suggest that the prayers be printed. I have not seen them, and I have not the slightest idea what they are … If we [the Senate] approves this report we are adopting these prayers without having seen them.

The PRESIDENT—The prayers are in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, which have been sent to honourable senators.

Senator Sir Josiah SYMON (South Australia)—Yes, and we have never seen them.

The report was adopted without division or dissent record, establishing prayer-reading in the Senate at the start of each sitting day, which came into effect on the following day.

The wording of the prayers were as follows:

Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all our consultations to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.

Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed by 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.

‘Standing Orders: Prayers-Chairman of Committees-Quorum’, Senate, Debates, 26 June 1901, 1568–1569, 1578.

10 June 1903 (Senate)

The Senate changes the wording of the parliamentary prayer.

The Senate adopted the Standing Orders Committee recommendation to change the wording of the parliamentary prayer (read before the Lord’s prayer), to remove reference to ‘at this time’ and to change ‘all our consultations’ to ‘the work of Thy servants’.

J. R. Odgers, Australian Senate Practice, (Canberra: Australian Parliament, 1953), 60–61.

1 September 1903

(Senate)

Revised parliamentary prayer is read for the first time in the Senate.

The revised wording of the parliamentary prayer, as agreed by the Senate in June 1903, came into force.

It remains the last change to the wording of the parliamentary prayer that is still read today:

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.

Odgers, Australian Senate Practice, op. cit., 61.

29 July 1909

(Reps)

Request made to change the wording of the parliamentary prayer in the House of Representatives.

Frederick Bamford (Herbert, Qld; ALP) asked the newly-appointed Speaker of the House if the wording of the daily prayer for parliament could be altered, from ‘consultations’ to ‘deliberations’:

Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all our ~~consultations~~ deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.

[additions in bold]

Bamford took exception to the word consultations used in the prayer, ‘seeing that in Australia, at any rate, it has very unhappy associations’. However, the wording of the parliamentary prayer was not changed at this time.

Frederick Bamford, ‘Wording of prayer’, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 July 1909, 1784–85.

23 May 1918

(Reps)

Request made for an extra prayer for WWI in the House of Representatives.

Hector Lamond (Illawarra, NSW; Nationalist Party) asked the acting Prime Minister:

whether he will consider the advisableness of adding to the prayer used at the opening of the sittings of the House a supplication for the soldiers and sailors engaged in the war?

Hector Lamond, ‘Prayer in Parliament’, Debates, House of Representatives, 23 May 1918, 5025.

24 May 1918

(Reps)

Request made to change the wording of the parliamentary prayer in the House of Representatives.

Frederick Bamford again requests that the word ‘consultations’ is changed to ‘deliberations’ in the parliamentary prayer:

Yesterday a question was asked regarding the prayer with which our proceedings are opened each day, and it was suggested that an addition should be made to the form of words used. On several occasions in the past I have suggested that the wording of the prayer should be amended, by the substitution of the word "deliberations" for the word "consultations," which, in Australia, has a meaning altogether dissociated from prayer. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, when the Standing Orders Committee is considering the alteration of the prayer, consideration can be given to my suggestion?

Speaker Elliot Johnson (Lang, NSW; Nationalist Party) responded that he should ‘be very glad to do what he [Bamford] desires’.

‘Opening prayer’, Debates, House of Representatives, 24 May 1918, 5109–5110.

29 May 1918

(Reps)

House of Representatives changes the wording of the parliamentary prayer and adds an extra prayer for WWI.

SO 29a was amended, by recommendation of the Standing Committee on Standing Orders, to change the wording of the parliamentary prayer to:

Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee ~~at this time~~ to vouchsafe Thy ~~special~~ blessing upon this Parliament. ~~and that Thou wouldst be pleased to~~ Direct and prosper ~~all~~ our ~~consultations~~ deliberations, to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.

[additions in bold]

The following additional prayer was also added to the standing orders, to be read before the Lord’s Prayer during the continuance of the War (WWI):

Strengthen, O Lord, the sailors and soldiers of our Commonwealth, our Empire, and our Allies; protect them from all dangers; give them speedy victory over their enemies; and grant that an honourable and a lasting peace may result from their valour and their sacrifices.

Frank Brennan (Batman, Vic; ALP) emphasised:

I would welcome an amendment of the Standing Orders which would permit us to offer up a prayers for peace, but I would ask that that prayer be offered up in the Christian spirit, and not in any pagan spirit … I oppose any amendment to the Standing Orders which will alter the prayer offered up in this House at the commencements of our deliberations in any direction which is not consistent with the faith of the great majority of honourable members of this Chamber, namely, the Christian faith.

‘The opening prayer’, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 May 1918, 5188–5192.

24 July 1919

(Reps)

House of Representatives debates wording of the prayer for WWI.

Albert Palmer (Echuca, Vic; Nationalist Party) suggested to the Speaker:

… do you not think it is somewhat out of place for us to continue to importune the Almighty to grant us peace when a peace that is highly satisfactory to the Empire has already been secured.

Speaker Elliot Johnson responded:

Since the declaration of peace, certain deletions have been made from the form of prayer which was drawn up by a Committee appointed to go into the matter; but if honourable members consider that further revision is necessary, I shall give it consideration.

I would, however, draw special attention to the wording of that part of the prayer to which the honourable member refers, and which, to my mind, does not call for immediate alteration, since what we ask for is a “lasting peace.” We pray—

Strengthen, O Lord, the soldiers and sailors of our Commonwealth, our Empire, and our Allies.

That, I think, is a supplication that we can at all times make. The succeeding sentence—

Protect them from all dangers; give them speedy victory over their enemies,

Is not now read, but is seems to me that the concluding sentence—

and grant that an honourable and lasting peace may result from their valour and their sacrifices,

is a prayer that will apply for all time.

Though the wartime prayer was stipulated to be read for the continuance of WWI, it is not clear what date it actually discontinued.

‘Form of prayer’, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 July 1919, 10938–10939.

17 September 1953

(Reps)

Speaker confirms members can recite Lord’s Prayer with him.

Upon being asked by James Fraser (Australian Capital Territory, ACT; ALP) whether MPs could recite the Lord’s Prayer with the Speaker, Archie Cameron (Barker, SA; Liberal Country League), replied:

The Standing Orders provide that the Speaker shall read certain prayers upon taking the chair at each sitting. There is nothing to say that honorable members shall or shall not join in repeating the “Our Father” if they wish to do so. From my nineteen years of experience in this House, I think that it might be an excellent beginning to each sitting if they did so.

‘The Parliament’, Debates, House of Representatives, 17 September 1953, 316.

28 May 1969

(Reps)

Speaker confirms members can recite Lord’s Prayer with him.

William Arthur (Barton, NSW; Lib.), asked the Speaker:

A number of members of the House feel that the opening prayers each day would mean more to them if they were able to repeat the Lord's Prayer with you. I ask whether we may have your permission to do this and thus add to the personal and corporate commitment of the House.

Speaker William Aston (Phillip, NSW; Lib.) stated he would be very pleased if Members joined in reciting the Lord’s Prayer, though he emphasised that it would be for each individual member to decide.

‘Prayers’, Debates, House of Representatives, 28 May 1969, 2318.

20 March 1972

(Reps)

Standing Orders Committee recommends no change to prayer-reading procedure in House of Representatives.

Doug Everingham (Capricornia, Qld; ALP) wrote to the Standing Orders Committee proposing that prayers read once a week would suffice and suggested ‘a more universally acceptable and relevant formula’, specifically:

Fellow members of one race, let us ever strive for closer understanding, respect and harmony between the earth's peoples and their chosen spokesmen, to their greater spiritual, social and personal welfare, and let us save and cherish other forms of life and nature in our global village. Amen.

The Standing Orders Committee recommended that there should be ‘no change either in the frequency of offering prayers or in their content’.

House of Representatives Standing Orders Committee, Report together with recommendations (Canberra: House of Representatives, 1972), 13 and Appendix D.

27 June 1996

(Senate)

Outgoing Senate President calls for prayer-reading to be abolished.

In a speech to the chamber, President of the Senate Michael Beahan (WA; ALP) stated:

I believe the Prayers in our standing orders are an archaic and anachronistic form of words that really should be changed. I believe that the South Africans have the best idea with a minute's contemplative silence. That appeals to all faiths, or non-faiths. Or you could have an evocative poem, or something like that.

Michael Beahan, ‘Valedictories’, Senate, Debates, 27 June 1996.

21 August 1996

(Senate)

Newly-elected President of the Senate confirms senators can recite Lord’s Prayer with her.

The Senate President, Margaret Reid (ACT; Lib), reported to the chamber:

some senators have asked if I would have any objection to their saying the Lord's Prayer with me. I have no objection and, if any senator wishes to, he or she may do so.

Margaret Reid, ‘Prayers’, Debates, Senate, 21 August 1996, 2737.

30 October 1997

(Senate)

Senate Procedure Committee investigates proposal to replace prayers with an invitation to pray or reflect in silence.

Senator Bob Brown (Tas; Greens) successfully moved a motion that instructed the Senate Procedure Committee to hold an inquiry and consult with all senators on his proposed amendments to SO 50.

The proposed amendments were, namely, that the daily prayers read in the Senate be replaced with the following statement:

Senators, let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to the people of Australia, to the States and Territories which we represent, and to all future generations.

Bob Brown, ‘Procedure Committee: Reference’, Senate, Debates, 30 October 1997, 8418.

November 1997

(Senate)

Senate Procedure Committee recommends no change to prayers read in the Senate.

The Senate Procedure Committee received responses from ‘some senators’, after the committee directed a circular letter to all senators asking for their views on the proposed amendments to SO 50. The Procedure Committee’s report on the matter stated:

It is clear that many senators who join in the prayer regard its retention as important, but among those who do not join in the prayer there does not appear to be a strong view that its proposed abolition is a significant question which should occupy the time of the Senate.

Having considered the views of those senators who responded and of its members, the committee does not recommend any change to the standing order.

Senate Standing Committee on Procedure, Second Report of 1997 (Canberra, The Senate, 1997), 4–5.

26 November 1997

(Senate)

Senate debates Procedure Committee’s recommendation to retain prayer-reading practice.

During the debate on the Procedure Committee’s second report of 1997, Senator Brian Harradine (Tas; Ind) stated:

Standing order No. 50 provides for the President of the Senate to open each parliamentary day with a public prayer to God for guidance, with the Lord's Prayer to follow. Senator [Bob] Brown proposed that the public prayer to God be abolished. I am very pleased to see that the Procedure Committee has recommended against that motion. At this time of all times we need the guidance of God and that is what standing order No. 50 has us doing
…
The Prayer for Guidance [parliamentary prayer] and the Lord's Prayer, publicly recited by the President on behalf of senators, is a humble, public acknowledgment that parliament itself is subject to a higher law; that unjust and immoral laws are unjust and immoral, even if correct procedures are followed. The Our Father is as close to a universal prayer as exists in human culture. All religions accept the existence of a guiding, benevolent influence in human affairs if only we hand control of our destiny to the Creator. Given our heritage and history, it is entirely appropriate that we symbolise this in the public recital of the Our Father. The preamble to the Australian constitution itself also declares our intention of:
... humbly relying on the blessing of the almighty God …
To be secular is one thing; to seek to deliberately and publicly expunge recited prayer in the Senate is quite another.

Senator Harradine also suggested modernising the wording of prayers read:

Perhaps there needs to be a minor change in words in there and in the Lord's Prayer, because the Prayer for Guidance says:

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.

'Vouchsafe' is not commonly used and I would have thought a word such as 'grant' would do equally as well. The Lord's Prayer starts with:

Our father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed by thy name.

I would have thought that 'who' might be more appropriate there. I foreshadow that, at some future time, I will be moving to have the word 'grant' for 'vouchsafe' and the word 'who' for 'which'.

On the matter of prayer-reading in the Senate, Senator Bob Brown, stated:

This is a matter that has attracted some public attention. It has been discussed by the churches. There has been criticism from Catholic bishops, for example. However, there has been quite strong and positive feedback, and alternatives have been put forward to me by other clergy and by members of the interested public.

Senator Brown also flagged he would continue to pursue changing SO 50.

‘Procedure Committee: Report’, Senate, Debates, 26 November 1997, 9518–9520.

27 November 1997

(Senate)

Motion to replace prayers with an invitation to pray or reflect in silence rejected in the Senate.

Senator Bob Brown attempted to replace the parliamentary prayer and Lord’s prayer under SO 50 with the following statement:

Senators, let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to the people of Australia, to the States and Territories which we represent, and to all future generations.

The motion was negatived. Though no formal vote (division) was held, Senator Brown and Senator Dee Margetts (WA; Greens) were the only senators recorded in support of the motion.

‘Prayer: Standing Order 50: Proposed Amendment’, Senate, Debates, 21 November 1997.

17 March 2005

(Senate)

Senator calls for prayers in parliament to continue.

During a speech to the Senate on the Lord’s Prayer in Parliament, Senator Santo Santoro (Qld; Lib) stated:

I am firmly of the belief that the prayer should guide the proceedings of the Senate and that, for all the secularity of today’s Australia, our culture and our very ethos is grounded in the Christian principles that gave birth to modern democracy. I see nothing wrong with that and I do not see why anyone should.

…

it is worth noting that in 1901, the year in which our Constitution established the Commonwealth of Australia and its legislature, more than 96 per cent of the population was Christian. Of this overwhelming proportion, 40 per cent identified themselves as Church of England, 23 per cent as Catholic and the two other large groups, Methodists and Presbyterians, made up 13 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. That was the solid Christian foundation on which prayers came to be said in our parliament. It was from this that Australia drew and continues to draw both its egalitarian tradition and practice and its status as a nation of faith.

Santo Santoro, ‘The Lord’s Prayer in Parliament’, Senate, Debates, 17 March 2005.

13 February 2014

(Senate)

Motion to establish an inquiry into changing prayers rejected in the Senate.

Senator Richard Di Natale (Vic; Greens), moved the motion:

That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report:

That consideration be given to amending section 50 of the standing orders to replace the prayer with the following: 'Senators, let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to the people of Australia, to the states and territories which we represent, and to all future generations.'

Senator Claire Moore (Qld; ALP) cited the reason the ALP did not support the motion was because a review of all parliamentary procedure was underway, and therefore expected ‘that the issues raised would be a natural part of that committee process’.

After the motion was negatived without division or dissent recorded, Senator Di Natale stated:

I am flagging now that Senator Siewert, who is the Greens' representative on the Procedure Committee, will be raising this issue specifically with the Procedure Committee. We are doing this because we live in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state. We live in a country of many different faiths—in fact, a country where many people have no faith—and a modern Australian parliament should reflect that. We do say that there should be some opportunity for reflection or, indeed, prayer, if people feel that way, and that is why we would like to see a minute at the start of each day in this place being offered for that reason.

‘Procedure Committee: Reference’, Senate, Debates, 13 February 2014.

27 June 2018

(Senate)

Senate Committee inquiry into replacing prayers with an invitation to pray or reflect in silence established.

Senator Lee Rhiannon (NSW; Greens), successfully moved a motion that proposed amendments to SO 50 be referred to the Senate Procedure Committee. Specifically, Senator Rhiannon sought to replace the parliamentary prayer and Lord’s prayer with the statement:

Senators, let us, in silence, pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to all people of Australia, and to future generations.

Further, that the Procedure Committee:

(a) consult with all senators;
(b) have the power to send for persons and documents, to move from place to place, and to meet and transact business in public or private sessions; and
(c) invite submissions and take evidence in public session.

After a formal vote (division), the motion passed.

34 senators voted in support of the motion: ALP, Greens, Centre Alliance, Liberal Democratic Party, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party and Independent, Tim Storer.

30 senators voted against the motion: Coalition, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON), Australian Conservatives, Katter’s Australia Party, United Australia Party (UAP).

‘Procedure Committee: Reference’, Senate, Debates, 27 June 2018.

2018

(Senate)

Senate Committee recommends no change to prayer-reading practice.

After the inquiry took place, the Senate Procedure Committee stated in its final report:

The committee does not consider, on the evidence before it and after its own deliberations, that there is a momentum for change. The committee therefore does not recommend that the amendments proposed in the reference should be adopted.

In reaching this conclusion, the committee also considered whether an invitation to personal prayer or reflection could be inserted alongside the current prayer. The committee did not reach a conclusion on this question, but notes that the Senate could achieve this by inserting a preamble to the traditional prayer along the following lines:

Senators, I invite you, as I read the prayer, to pray or reflect in your own way on your responsibilities to the people of Australia and to future generations.

As has been observed elsewhere, for the most part it remains a personal matter for senators whether to attend for the prayer, or join in the prayer, at the start of sittings. One exception, of course, is that the standing order requires the President to be present to read the prayer. The committee notes that some jurisdictions provide the option of the presiding officer inviting another member to read the prayer. The Senate may wish to consider whether that option should be made available through a change to the standing orders. Again, the committee makes no recommendation on this matter.

A dissenting report by the Australian Greens was also published, stating:

The Australian Greens firmly believe that the current prayer, which has been read each sitting day since 1901, is outdated and no longer reflective of Australia’s religiously diverse and secular society.

Senate Standing Committee on Procedure, Proposal to replace the parliamentary prayer (Canberra: The Senate, 2018).

Australian Greens, Dissenting Report, Senate Standing Committee on Procedure (Canberra: The Senate, 2018).

13 September 2018

(Senate)

Senate debates Committee’s recommendation to not change prayer-reading practice.

The Deputy President of the Senate and Chair of the Procedure Committee, Senator Sue Lines (WA; ALP), presented the Committee’s second report of 2018 to the chamber and noted:

The committee received approximately 820 submissions, the vast majority of which did not support replacing the prayer
…
The submissions made on this occasion and the views of the committee members and their colleagues suggest the opinions are not significantly different in 2018 than they were during the 1997 inquiry. Those in favour of the prayer strongly favour its retention, whilst those opposed are less vocal and less concerned to see it changed.

Senator Di Natale gave a statement in relation to the dissenting report from the Greens on the matter:

Our proposal is a very straightforward one. It's one where we invite people to prayer or reflection, but in silence. Basically, we put forward a proposal where we could use the opening statement that's read at the start of each day in the Legislative Assembly of the ACT. That procedure was adopted back in 1995, and not a moment too soon. To summarise: our recommendation is that as a parliament we no longer begin each day with the Lord's Prayer—something that is inconsistent with a modern multicultural, multifaith democracy—and instead we recommend that the requirement for prayer under standing order 50 be replaced with an invitation to prayer or reflection. That could be done in silence, it would be a much more inclusive gesture and it would reflect the breadth of views right across the Australian community.

‘Senate Procedure Committee: Report’, Senate, Debates, 13 September 2018, 6376–6377.

3 April 2019

(Senate)

Senator calls for prayers in parliament to continue.

In her first speech to Parliament, Senator Wendy Askew (Tas; Lib) stated:

Our system of government and laws is based on Judeo-Christian principles, and we begin the day's proceedings with a Christian prayer. Senators do not have to say the prayer or even be present in the chamber when it's said. There is no compulsion, but it has been a part of our parliamentary proceedings since the first meeting in 1901. There has been a proposal in Victoria to abolish the Lord's Prayer in that parliament. It was made by a minor party in that state's upper house. I want to place on record that it seems to me to be a particularly poorly timed proposal in the wake of the awful events in Christchurch. A response to intolerance should never, logically, be more intolerance. We respect those of all faiths who have come to Australia, or indeed those of no faith, just as we respect Australians born here according to their creed or belief. I have never heard one leader of a non-Christian faith call for the abolition of the Lord's Prayer in our parliament. These suggestions always come from other quarters, and, as I say, when unpacked, aren't at their core really about inclusion at all—quite the opposite.

Wendy Askew, ‘First speech’, Debates, Senate, 3 April 2019, 933.

July 2022

(Senate)

Newly-elected Senate President calls for end to parliamentary prayers.

President of the Senate Sue Lines was quoted in the media as stating:

“Personally, I would like to see the prayers gone. I’m an atheist. I don’t want to say the prayers. If others want to say the prayers, they’re open to do that.

“Personally I would like to see them gone but again it’s not something I can decree. It’s a view of the Senate.”

Senator Lines said the abolition of the Lord’s Prayer was “certainly on the agenda” and would be raised with the Senate procedure committee, which considers any matter relating to procedures referred to it by the chamber or the president.

Rosie Lewis and Alice Workman, ‘Atheist Senate chief wants prayers gone’, The Australian, 28 July 2022

1 August 2022

(Senate)

Senate debates prayer-reading in parliament.

Senator Jonno Duniam (Tas; Lib), stated:

It's passing strange that, in a world like the one we're living in today, with all of the challenges households and businesses face, we'd be debating something at least in the public domain like the prayers said at the beginning of any parliamentary session. But, now it's up for debate, I'm going to put on record my personal views around the prayer, and as a Christian I'm very proud to be doing so. As we know, of course, participation in the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of any session of parliament and on any sitting day is a voluntary thing. It's something I encourage others to do, but, certainly, as I say, as with all commencement proceedings it is voluntary; it is not compulsory.
…
On behalf of the Australians who elect us to come here and to represent them, we have to get the job right. So, to that end, asking God to help us can't be a bad thing, in my view, and I wouldn't have thought that, even to atheists, it would it be a bad thing.

Senator Mehreen Faruqi (NSW; Greens), stated:

This parliament is more diverse than ever: more First Nations people, more people of colour and more women. Australia is changing … If we are genuine about saying to the community that parliament is a place that welcomes people from every race, faith and culture, then its systems and norms, which purport to represent the community, must change. How can we continue to open our daily business with the Lord's Prayer?
…
Our parliament should be modern and secular, so let's stop pretending that we are a white Christian monocultural society. We are not. We never were. We must shed the shackles of colonialism. Racism, the oath to the British monarch and the reading of the Lord's Prayer to start our day have no place in here.

‘Australian Parliament’, Senate, Debates, 1 August 2022, 276–277.

28 September 2022

(Senate)

An invitation to pray or reflect is given before prayers are read in the Senate.

On behalf of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Katy Gallagher (ACT; ALP), Senator Anthony Chisholm (Qld; ALP), successfully moved a motion that amended Senate SO 50 to include the statement preceding the reading of the existing prayers:

Senators, I invite you, as I read the prayer, to pray or reflect in your own way on your responsibilities to the people of Australia and to future generations.

The amendment also included swapping the order of the prayers and acknowledgement of country, so that the acknowledgement of country is read first (in line with House of Representatives practice).

ALP, Greens, and Jacquie Lambie Network senators, and Independent David Pocock voted in support of the change. Coalition, PHON and UAP senators voted against the motion.

The amendments took effect from the first sitting day in October 2022 (Tuesday 25th).

‘Senate standing orders’, Senate, Debates, 28 September 2022.

Appendix: List of current prayer-reading rules in Australian parliaments

*Chamber*	*Christian prayers at the start of each sitting day?*
House of Representatives	y	Speaker reads the following parliamentary prayer before the Lord’s Prayer (SO 38): Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouch safe 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.
Senate	y	President reads the following statement and parliamentary prayer before the Lord’s Prayer (SO 50): Senators, I invite you, as I read the prayer, to pray or reflect in your own way on your responsibilities to the people of Australia and to future generations. 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.
ACT Legislative Assembly	n	At the start of each sitting, the Speaker states (SO 30): Members, at the beginning of this sitting of the Assembly, I would ask you to stand in silence and pray or reflect on our responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.
NSW Legislative Assembly	y	The Speaker or Clerk reads the following parliamentary prayer (SO 39): Almighty God, we ask for your blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the true welfare of Australia and the people of New South Wales. Amen.
NSW Legislative Council	y	President or another member/Clerk (nominated by the President) reads the following parliamentary prayer before the Lord’s Prayer (SO 28): 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 our state and Australia.
NT Legislative Assembly	y	Speaker or a nominee reads the following parliamentary prayer before the Lord’s Prayer (SO 7): Almighty God we humbly beseech thee to vouchsafe thy blessing upon this Assembly. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of thy glory and the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
QLD Legislative Assembly	y	Speaker reads a Protestant version of the Lord’s Prayer [Source: Queensland Parliamentary Library & Research Service]. The wording of the prayer is not fixed. Sessional Orders require ‘prayers’ be the first item of business per sitting day (1(c)), similarly Standing Orders do not specify the wording of prayer to be read (p. 11).
SA House of Assembly	y	Speaker reads the following parliamentary prayer before the Lord’s Prayer (SO 39): Almighty God, we humbly beseech you to bless this Parliament and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Your Glory and the true welfare of the people of this State.
SA Legislative Council	y	President reads the following parliamentary prayer before the Lord’s Prayer (SO 51): Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. We pray Thee to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy Glory and the true Welfare of the people of this State.
TAS House of Assembly	y	Speaker reads the following statement and prayer before the Lord’s Prayer (SO 22): I now invite Members to join me in reciting the Lord’s Prayer or to stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of the Tasmania. Almighty God, we humbly ask You to grant Your blessing upon this Parliament. Lead our deliberations and make them succeed for Your Glory and the true welfare of the people of Tasmania.
TAS Legislative Council	y	President will take the chair and ‘read Prayers’ (SO 28). A resolution of the current Parliament requires the President to read the following parliamentary prayer to be read before the Lord’s Prayer (p. 12): 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 Tasmania. The wording of prayers is determined by a resolution on the opening day of each new Parliament.
VIC Legislative Assembly	y	Ongoing resolution (voted on and passed 4 October 1928, p. 69) states that the Speaker ‘should read the Lord’s Prayer’ on taking the Chair each day (p. 131).
VIC Legislative Council	y	President ‘will read the Lord’s Prayer’ (SO 4.02) at the start of each sitting day.
WA Legislative Assembly	y	Speaker reads the following parliamentary prayer followed by the Lord’s Prayer [Source: WA Parliamentary Library]: Almighty God we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament now assembled, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all our consultations to the advancement of Thy glory and the true welfare of the people of Western Australia. Though the SOs specify that the Speaker will say prayers at the start of each sitting (SO 20/SO 58), the precise wording is not specified in the Standing Orders.
WA Legislative Council	y	President reads the following parliamentary prayer, followed by the Lord’s Prayer, upon taking the Chair each sitting day [Source: WA Parliamentary Library]: Almighty God, creator of the universe, giver of life, who has ordained that we should live as social beings, seeking the fulfilment of our own true purpose within our society; bless this Legislative Council now assembled to deliberate upon the affairs affecting the well-being and good order of society in Western Australia; that all members give honour, wisdom and integrity to the role for which they have been chosen, and the decisions and decorum of this Council be always to the advancement of Thy glory, the honour of Her Majesty and the continued benefit of the people of this State. Amen. SOs require ‘prayers’ be the first item of business per sitting day (SO 14(1)(a)). A 2015 resolution (still in force) specified the wording of the prayer (p. 5).

Source: Compiled by the Parliamentary Library.
Note: ACT, NT and Queensland are unicameral parliaments.

Licence

© Commonwealth of Australia

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

Disclaimer

This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament. All links are correct at the time of publication and are not subsequently updated.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian at webmanager@aph.gov.au. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.

Prayers in Parliament: a chronology

Author

Go to a section

Prayer-reading in Australian parliaments

Chronology of prayer-reading in Federal Parliament

Appendix: List of current prayer-reading rules in Australian parliaments

Related

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

‘Just terms’, native title and the territories: Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu

Japan’s new security strategy: intentions and implications