Copeland Gordon: Standing Orders 
Copeland Gordon: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10733] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 For me as a first-term member of this House it has been a unique and rewarding experience to be so closely involved in this major review of the Standing Orders—the first of its kind in more than 4 years. I would also like to pass on my compliments both to yourself as the chair and also to David McGee as adviser to the committee for the excellent way that you took us through a maze of at times very complex matters. 
I want today to speak briefly about a matter that the committee has decided with my full support to continue with—that is the parliamentary prayer. The first question I would like to ask is whether we should open Parliament each day with prayer. The decision to do that was taken by the New Zealand House of Representatives on 26 May 1854 and accordingly our daily prayer continues a tradition that has now lasted for almost 150 years. I believe we should continue that tradition. 
It never seems to occur to people who with the zeal of a rebellious teenager want to “throw off tradition” that a practice becomes a tradition because it has survived the test of time. Therefore when we are looking to change tradition our initial approach should be one of great caution since tradition links us back to something that our culture has valued through many successive generations. Prayer in my view is important because it is a specific recognition of the transcendent dimension of life. When each of us—from the Prime Minister to back-benchers—takes a moment to bring the transcendent to mind we not only demonstrate our essential equality of dignity as fellow New Zealanders—something that is a strong part of our egalitarian ethos—but also we deny ultimate authority over our nation to merely human opinion. When we deny the transcendent we have moved from secular without a capital “s” to secular with a capital “s”. We then immediately place ourselves among those States that are closed to the transcendent—we become a closed State. We saw examples of that in the 20th century in fascism and communism. I do not think any of us want to go down that road. 
The next question is what form should the prayer take. I suggest we should continue with a Christian prayer. I say that based on my examination of the 2001 census figures and the breakdown of religious affiliation. I find from those figures that 55.7 percent of New Zealanders identify themselves as Christians. The next-largest religious grouping in New Zealand is Buddhists who make up 1.08 percent of the New Zealand population followed closely by Hindus on 1.04 percent. No other single religious group is more than 1 percent. 
New Zealand in terms of its religious affiliation is overwhelmingly a Christian nation today as it has been continuously since the prayer was first introduced almost 150 years ago—in 1854. Accordingly in my view there is no clear case to be made for a change and those who propose a change fail to recognise that a minority of the population would then be imposing its view on the majority. Are we to settle for the tyranny of the minority? I think not. 
The answer to this little dilemma I think can easily be found and explained through the virtue of tolerance. If I as a Christian were living in a Muslim country such as Indonesia or Turkey or a Hindu country such as India I would certainly expect and also respect the opening of their Parliament with a Muslim or a Hindu prayer. Likewise to be consistent with my logic if another religious group—be it Buddhist Hindu Muslim or whatever—were to become the majority in New Zealand then tolerance would oblige me at that point in time to support a change. With those few remarks I commend the revised Standing Orders and the committee’s recommendation to this House.