There is an old saying that tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.

It is a sentiment worth remembering as Western Australia’s Parliament considers whether to remove the Lord’s Prayer from the Legislative Assembly.

As the youngest member of the Assembly, and someone who freely admits to being a student of parliamentary history and procedure, I welcome the review of our Standing Orders. The first comprehensive review in almost 30 years provides an opportunity to modernise aspects of Parliament and ensure its rules remain fit for purpose.

But modernisation should not be confused with amnesia.

The debate about the Lord’s Prayer is often presented as a simple choice between tradition and progress. It is not.

The Lord’s Prayer has opened parliamentary proceedings throughout the Westminster world for generations. It predates Federation, predates responsible government in Western Australia and connects our Parliament to a democratic tradition that stretches back centuries.

Its significance is not simply religious.

The Westminster system emerged from a long struggle to constrain power, protect liberty and establish the principle that governments are accountable to elected representatives. The traditions of Parliament, including its ceremonies, symbols and conventions, help remind us that democratic institutions are bigger than the politicians who temporarily occupy them.

The Lord’s Prayer is one of those traditions.

As a Catholic, I value the prayer itself. But even for those who do not share my faith, there is something worthwhile in preserving a practice that encourages humility before the business of governing.

After all, Parliament is one of the few places in modern society where people routinely believe they have all the answers.

A brief reminder that we may not is not the worst way to start the day.

The prayer is also a recognition that our democracy did not appear from nowhere.

Institutions are inherited before they are reformed. They are built over generations and entrusted to those who follow.

Too often in modern politics we approach institutions with the assumption that if something is old, it must be outdated.

History suggests the opposite can sometimes be true.

Trial by jury is old. Parliamentary privilege is old. Freedom of speech within Parliament is old. The rule of law itself is old.

Their age is not a weakness. It is evidence that they have endured because they continue to serve a purpose.

This does not mean every tradition should be preserved forever. Institutions must evolve. Parliament should reflect the society it serves.

We rightly acknowledge Aboriginal Australians and their enduring connection to country. That practice has become an important part of our parliamentary proceedings and should continue.

But I reject the notion that this must be an either-or proposition.

A mature democracy should be capable of recognising multiple strands of its history simultaneously. We should be confident enough to add to our traditions without feeling compelled to erase existing ones.

The larger question raised by this debate is what we expect Parliament to be.

Increasingly, there is a temptation to view Parliament as a legislative production line, a place where governments process Bills and manage political messaging.

That misunderstands its purpose.

Parliament is not primarily a vehicle for government. It is a forum for scrutiny, debate and representation. It exists so competing ideas can be tested in public and so governments can be held accountable for the exercise of power.

Strong debate produces stronger laws. Strong scrutiny produces better government.

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time testing the limits of Standing Orders, I know that parliamentary procedure can occasionally seem arcane. But these rules and traditions matter because they shape how democracy functions in practice.

The Lord’s Prayer will not determine whether Western Australia succeeds or fails.

But the way we approach this debate says something important about our attitude towards institutions.

In an age when trust in democratic institutions is declining across much of the Western world, we should be cautious about discarding traditions that connect us to the foundations of our democracy.

Not because they are old.

But because they remind us that democracy is not merely inherited. It is maintained. And that task requires a little humility from all of us.

Lachlan Hunter MP, Member for Central Wheatbelt, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food; Racing and Gaming