Brian Rudman: Why calling for God's help is no longer representative of New Zealand

We ran a list the other day of insults parliamentarians are forbidden to throw at each other. Words like hypocritical, two-faced and gutless.

I'm not sure whether that ban applies to the rest of us, so I'll wimp-out and use the word "odd" to describe what went on in Parliament yesterday before many of our representatives defied the wrath of the Catholics and the fundies and vote for the Civil Union Bill.

I'm referring to the moment when assorted agnostics, atheists and Christians, along with a Rastafarian, a Muslim and who knows what else, rose and beseeched God "to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion ... " etc etc ... "through Jesus Christ Our Lord, Amen."

It's taken more than a year, but Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan has finally replied to Progressive MP Matt Robson's request for her view on whether this prayer breaches human rights legislation. He believes it does because it excludes non-Christians.

Mr Robson raised the issue in the wake of former North Shore city councillor Andrew Williams' battle to have an "Anglo-Saxon old English prayer" dropped from the meetings of a council representing "a multi-cultural population with a variety of religious and non-religious beliefs".

Mr Williams had little joy from the Human Rights bureaucracy, and neither has Mr Robson.

The bulk of Mrs Noonan's reply is a lengthy legal paper stating, "unequivocally", she has no authority to advise or instruct Parliament on conducting its affairs.

That out of the way, Mrs Noonan does hint to Parliament what she thinks should happen. She began by repeating comments of three years ago on the North Shore complaint.

"We have to recognise public authorities certainly should not be using religion in a way that excludes those not of the religion being used.

"But I think a few moments of meditation before a meeting is not something that anyone could object to. It might be desirable to think about the words being changed from time to time and being inclusive of different perspectives."

She then zeroes in on Parliament which "is completely sovereign with respect to its own proceedings and neither the courts nor anyone else may determine what it does".

Then comes the nudge nudge, wink wink to her sovereign masters.

"The human rights standards provide a sound basis against which to explore issues arising from the dynamic, evolving nature of societies in the 21st century and Parliament may choose to use them in determining its own procedures.

"As the only elected body representing all the people of New Zealand, Parliament is in a unique position to undertake a constructive review of its use of prayers, taking account of religious and ethical, cultural, ceremonial and historical aspects and the increasing diversity of New Zealand's population."

It'll be interesting to see if the subtle approach works. It didn't where North Shore council was involved. The city thumbed its noses at the Human Rights Commission, refusing to even take part in mediation over the matter.

Councillor Williams then applied to the office of Human Rights Proceedings for legal representation in a case of unlawful discrimination against him by Mayor George Wood and the city council. Director Robert Hesketh turned him down on the grounds "that cases that have a good chance of success and that involve serious allegations resulting in high level of harm, take priority", and his was not one of those. He added there did not seem to be public interest factors that overruled the above.

He did suggest Mr Williams might have a case "about unjustifiable coercive pressure put on him by the council in the exercise of your religious freedom". But he'd have to lay that under the freedom of thought, conscience and religion provisions of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, which he didn't deal with.

Mr Williams lost his seat in October. Whether his stance on the prayer was a factor, who knows?

What I do know is a truly representative city council or Parliament would not be forcing members to beseech the blessings of the god and saviour of just one group of its citizens before getting down to business each day.