2011

THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF QUEENSLAND

OFFICE OF CLERK OF ASSEMBLY

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS

EXTRACT MINUTE

At Brisbane, and within the Assembly Hall, Clayfield College, Brisbane, at 7.30 pm on the 22June 2011 on which the General Assembly being duly constituted.

INTER ALIA:

MINUTE 106

106. Deliverance as a Whole

The deliverance as a whole was approved as follows:

That the Assembly:

1. Commend Membership of the Public Questions and Communications Committee to Assembly Commissioners when nominating members to Assembly Committees.

2. Encourage Sessions to appoint a Community Interest Contact Person, (with email access) within the Congregation, to be a link with the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and to promote activity within the community by the Congregation.

3. Commend the Public Questions and Communications Committee web site http://www.answerstolive.com/ to the Church.

4. Commend the period of prayer and fasting in October, with Prayer Notes supplied by the GAA Church and Nation Committee, to Sessions for use in the life of Congregations.

5. Affirm the statement of The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia adopted in September 2010, on the Responsible Use of Alcohol (GAA BB Min 96.4) as follows:

The Assembly:

(a) Despite its abuse by many, affirms alcohol as God’s Gift when used in moderation (1 Tim. 4:4, 5:23, John 2:1-11).
(b) Respects the position of total abstinence, taken by many Christians, on theological, ethical, practical and health grounds and does not wish to offend their consciences by this declaration in accordance with the principles of Romans 14.
(c) Warns, with all seriousness, of the perils of drunkenness for both the body (Prov. 23:20-35) and the soul (1 Tim. 6:10).
(d) Urges those addicted to alcohol to seek the help of organizations that specialize in the treatment of such addictions, recognizing that Christ’s power is able to break any sinful pattern through His Spirit.
(e) Urges Sessions, Deacons Courts, Committees and Boards of Management to make their facilities available to such organizations that specialize in the treatment of such addictions.
(f) Urges Christians to develop a definite attitude to alcohol by:

• educating themselves and their families on the effects of alcohol and the consequences of alcohol abuse.
• noting that self-control is one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5.22-23).
• adopting either temperance or total abstinence in their personal and family intake of alcohol.
• being constantly aware of how their attitude to alcohol affects their witness to others.

(g) Urges Christians, privately and in public, to be models of responsibility and sobriety where they choose to be consumers of alcoholic beverages (Titus 2.11-14).
(h) Deplores the fact that alcohol is being consistently abused within the community with devastating results such as death and injury on the roads and in the workplace, addiction, violence, domestic disruption and misery, poverty, problems in pregnancy and damage to personal health.
(i) Urges concerted action by state and federal governments, in consultative partnership with insurance companies, aimed at curbing the abuse of alcohol in the community by:

• restricting advertising of alcoholic beverages in the media:
• facilitating sources of sports sponsorship and associated advertising funding, alternative to marketers of alcoholic beverages at sporting events.
• placing clear health warnings on alcoholic beverages.
• imposing equitable taxes on the sale of alcoholic beverages that adequately cover the financial cost to the community of alcohol abuse.
• applying taxation proportionately higher according to the percentage of alcohol content of the beverage.
• regulating tightly the institutions that sell alcoholic beverages, including the hours in which they operate.
• encouraging or offering insurance policies with conditions that promote abstention or temperance in the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

6. Affirm the statement of The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia adopted in September 2010, on Marriage (GAA BB Min 96.6) as follows:

That the Assembly:

(a) Declares that marriage is a divine creation ordinance relevant for all mankind (Gen. 2:23-24).
(b) Declares that marriage, rightly defined, is a public commitment between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
(c) Affirms its understanding that the purposes of marriage are to promote lifelong love and companionship between the spouses, to provide the most favourable and stable environment in which to conceive, give birth to and nurture children and to promote the health and stability of society.
(d) Reaffirms its long-held opposition to the redefining of marriage so as to include partners of the same sex.
(e) Encourages teaching and ruling elders and other pastoral leaders to teach the distinctive, Christian, covenantal view in preparing couples for marriage.
(f) Calls on all involved in de facto heterosexual, domestic relationships to solemnise those commitments by means of marriage (Hebrews 13:4) and appeals to all pastoral leaders to persist in calling on them to do so.
(g) Recognises the value to both the church and the world of the celibate, single adult life (1 Corinthians 7).
(h) Commends Chapter 5 of General Assembly of Australia’s Constitution, Procedure and Practice 2006 Edition, “Determinations on Marriage and Divorce”, to the consideration and study of all ministers, elders, pastoral leaders and members of the church.
 (http://www.presbyterian.org.au/PDF/GAACode%20Book2006.pdf)
(i) Urges church members to show understanding and compassion for people whose lives have been affected by marriage and/or relationship breakdown, including divorce.
(j) Commends the Federal Parliament on its continued affirmation of the legal definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

7. Note that the General Assembly of Australia, Church and Nation Committee, submission to the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Migration, enquiry into Multiculturalism, concluded with the following statement:

Therefore, whilst we have read the Terms of Reference of this enquiry and welcome its thrust such as the desire to see all newcomers successfully integrated into Australia and their productive contribution to our society socially, economically and culturally recognized and celebrated, we raise caveat over Islamic migration to this country.

We do not want the acceptance of any parallel legal system, especially Sharia in Australia, and this includes the Islamic financial system, or Sharia courts to settle family disputes. We have written to the Trade Minister, the Hon Simon Crean with our concerns about this matter.

Positively, we support every encouragement given by Government that all Australians, including those of the Islamic faith, embrace, support and uphold the Australian legal system.

8. Write to the Prime Minister and the Premier, with copies to the Leaders of the Other Parliamentary Parties, and the Independent Members of Parliament and the Senate at the Federal and State level, and to the media: calling on both Governments not to accept any parallel legal system, including Indigenous, but especially Sharia, in Australia or Queensland, (including the Islamic financial system, or Sharia courts to settle family disputes); while stating positively that the Assembly supports every encouragement given by Governments, that all Australians, including those of the Islamic faith, embrace, support and uphold the Australian legal system.

9. Appoint Mrs Mendy Campbell, Mr Don Lewis and the Rev. David Niven to represent the Presbyterian Church of Queensland at the Annual General Meeting of DrugARM.

10. Request the Representatives of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, as an ordinary member of the Drug Awareness and Relief Foundation (Australia) (DrugARM), to take all appropriate action to change the policy of DrugARM in relation to accepting support from funds generated by gambling, and to bring a report to the 2012 Assembly.

11. Commend DrugARM to the prayerful support of the Church.

12. Request Presbyteries and Sessions to be aware that there are ongoing moves to decriminalise abortion in Queensland and to establish a good working relationship with their local Member of the Legislative Assembly.

13. Note that the Moderator-General issued a media release, on the matter of the banning of giving Bibles as gifts at Citizenship Ceremonies, and that this decision of the Minister for Immigration has since been revised; and incorporate a copy of the media release in the record of Assembly:

Australia needs the Bible, top Churchman warns

Australia was slowly and, it seemed, inexorably turning its back on God, according to the Moderator-General of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, the Right Reverend David Jones.

“The decision of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to ban Bibles from Citizenship Ceremonies, is just one more symptom of that turning away ” Rev. Jones said.

Recently Senator Guy Barnett told the Senate that Immigration and Citizen Minister, Chris Bowen, had ignored his two letters asking for confirmation that Bibles had not been banned from Citizenship Ceremonies.

So, he raised the matter in Senate Estimates, and the Department confirmed that community groups, including the Bible Society, were not allowed to offer Bibles as gifts, even though that has been a longstanding practice.

The Department’s reasoning was that Citizenship Ceremonies were secular in nature and that the distribution of holy books by organisations conducting Citizenship Ceremonies was not appropriate.

“One wonders what the government is afraid of,” said Rev. Jones, “This year marks the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible which has been a powerful influence for good all around the world.  What better gift can you give a new Australian?  It is certainly more useful than a potted plant!”

14. (a) Note that the Report on the Inquiry into Gambling, by the Productivity Commission, was released in February 2011, http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009/report, and that the Report identifies the following in its key points:

• Total recorded expenditure (losses) in Australia reached just over $19 billion in 2008-09, or an average of $1,500 per adult who gambled.
• While precision is impossible, various state surveys suggest that the number of Australians categorised as ‘problem gamblers’ ranges around 115,000, with people categorised as at ‘moderate risk’ ranging around 280,000.
• The risks of problem gambling are low for people who only play lotteries and scratchies, but rise steeply with the frequency of gambling on table games, wagering and, especially, gaming machines.
• Most policy interest centres on people playing regularly on the ‘pokies’. Around 600,000 Australians (4 per cent of the adult population) play at least weekly.
• While survey results vary, around 15 per cent of these regular players (95,000) are ‘problem gamblers’. And their share of total spending on machines is estimated to range around 40 per cent.
• The significant social cost of problem gambling - estimated to be at least $4.7 billion a year - means that even policy measures with modest efficacy in reducing harm will often be worthwhile.

(b)  Write to the Prime Minister and the Premier, with a copy to the Minor Parties and the Independents in the Federal and State Parliaments, and to the Media: expressing concern about the level of social harm caused by gambling, as identified in the Report on the Inquiry into Gambling, by the Productivity Commission, in the key points listed above; requesting both the Federal and the State Government to take all appropriate action to reduce the damage caused by gambling in the community.

15. Note that leading up to Christmas 2010, Family Radio 96.5 ran a series of spots highlighting the Presbyterian Church of Queensland in Brisbane with the theme, Jesus is the Reason for the Season, and that in the two weeks leading up to Easter Family Radio 96.5 and regional stations ran as series of spots with the theme, The Christ of the Cradle is the Christ of the Cross.

16. Note that leading up to Christmas 2010, The Courier Mail ran a series of spots highlighting the Presbyterian Church of Queensland in Queensland with the theme, Jesus is the Reason for the Season, and that in the week leading up to Easter The Courier Mail and The Sunday Mail ran a series of spots with the theme, The Christ of the Cradle is the Christ of the Cross.

17. Note that the Media Releases by the Moderator-General of the Presbyterian Church of Australia and the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland have been released through Media Monitors.

18. Request the Public Questions and Communications Committee to continue to highlight the Presbyterian Church of Queensland by the effective use of the Media in pre-evangelism.

19. Note the letter in support of School Chaplaincy written by the Moderator and the Clerk of Assembly, with the Concurrence of the Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, to Federal and State Government Leaders expressing support for School Chaplaincy, and incorporate a copy into the Record of Assembly:

The Presbyterian Church of Queensland is encouraged by the increased support for Chaplaincy in Queensland Schools as announced in the Media Release of 11 February by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett, with the support of the Queensland Education and Training Minister, Geoff Wilson.

The provision of an additional fifteen School Chaplains to work across a number of Queensland schools affected by the recent floods is a valuable support service.

The Church is very supportive of the work of Scripture Union in its role of co-ordinating Chaplains.

Yours faithfully

(Rt Rev) John Langbridge - Moderator

(Rev) Ron Clark- Clerk of Assembly

20. Write to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with a copy to the media: expressing concern as to the state of affairs of human rights abuse in relation to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly, (in particular such abuses against Christians) in China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia (including West Papua), Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Somalia, The Sudan and Zimbabwe; requesting the Australian Government take all appropriate action in addressing the situation in these countries, so that the citizens may live in peace with freedom of worship and of association.

21. Note that the Human Rights and Commission’s Report on Freedom of Religion and Belief in 21st Century Australia, http://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/index.html, was released on the 21st March 2011, after receiving over 2,000 submissions, and that the Report makes no definite legislative requests such as for a Bill of Rights. 

22. Request the Public Questions and Communications Committee, to monitor the situation in relation to moves to alter the exemptions given under anti-discrimination legislation, to Churches and Religious Institutions, not to employ persons, who do not hold to the beliefs and practices of these Bodies.

23. Commend the Seminar, run by the Public Questions and Communications Committee, on the topic, Effecting Your Community, held in conjunction with the Australian Federation for the Family, with Mr Jack Sonnermann as the main presenter, on Saturday 25th June 2011, at the Annerley Presbyterian Church, from 2.00pm to 4.30pm, to Congregations; noting that the Seminar will cover the following practical steps on how to:

• Remove pornography from a newsagent
• Cancel offensive TV commercials
• Cancel advertising contracts from pornographic TV shows
• Remove advertisements (money) from porn magazines
• Contact the Australian Broadcasting Authority (and others)
• Write effective letters to the editor, politicians and advertisers
• Lobby legislators.

24. Endorse the Statement of 6 November 2010 and Press Release of 1 October 2010 on Euthanasia, of the Christian Medical and Dental Association of Australia, and incorporate copies into the record of the Assembly as follows:
CMDFA - Christian Medical and Dental Association of Australia

Response to Euthanasia

Approved by CMDFA board, November 6, 2010.

http://www.cmdfa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=136:cmdfa-response-to-euthanasia&catid=15:working-papers&Itemid=16

According to the Australian Medical Association, “Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient for the purpose of ending intolerable pain or suffering”. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) occurs “where the assistance of the medical practitioner is intentionally directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life” and usually this involves the provision of a prescription.

Moral opposition to both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a feature of both the Hippocratic and the Judeo-Christian tradition from earliest times. This is particularly striking in view of the commitment of both traditions to the relief of suffering and care of the dying. We acknowledge the power of the arguments for both practices based on compassion, but believe that even more powerful counter-arguments lead us as Christians and doctors to continue to oppose their legalization.

The first of these counter-arguments is based on the creation of humankind in God’s own image (Genesis 1: 26-27). Every human, no matter how physically or mentally impaired, bears the divine image and as such their life is not their own or anyone else’s to take. Life giving and life taking are divine prerogatives. To take human life is both to attack God through his image bearer and to usurp God’s authority. This is the underlying principle behind the sixth commandment: “You shall not murder”. Although God delegates life taking to his covenant people under particular circumstances during the Old Testament period (capital punishment and holy war), there is no suggestion of a divine mandate for suicide or euthanasia.

The second counter-argument is based on justice. Within a biblical worldview, justice is understood not primarily in terms of individual rights but in terms of restoration of right relationships and the common good. It is particularly concerned with protecting those who are disadvantaged - the poor, the disabled, the sick, the very young and the very old. The legalization of euthanasia would grant to some people a claimed right, but at the cost of putting at risk the lives of many other, vulnerable people. Evidence from the Netherlands where euthanasia has been legalised is that many people are killed without a specific request. And, the criteria for euthanasia have expanded from severe physical suffering, terminal illness and competent adult patients to include psychological distress and children, even infants. The very existence of the possibility of legal euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide increases pressure on the sick and elderly, who already feel that they are a burden on their family or society, to request it. This pressure would be further exacerbated by inequities in the availability of palliative care.

But what about the obligation to relieve suffering?

As Christians and doctors we acknowledge our obligation to show compassion and use all legitimate means to relieve pain and suffering. This includes the administration of appropriate analgesia and/or sedation at the end of life, as long as the intention is to relieve suffering and not to terminate life. There have been concerns in the past that such treatments may shorten the life of the patient, however, we note the opinion of palliative care specialists that there is no evidence that the skilled and appropriate delivery of palliative care measures shorten life . Pain and other symptoms may (but not always) be associated with terminal illness, and palliative care aims to control distressing symptoms so patients can do the important things they want to do before they die. The most common reason why palliative care services cannot help dying patients is because they are referred too late or not at all.  The development of palliative care services has reduced calls for legalization of euthanasia on the grounds of compassion.

However, even with good palliative care, some patients will continue to suffer.  We need to recognise that, essentially, suffering is not a medical problem. It is an existential problem that extends beyond physical pain.  It is influenced by psychological, cultural and spiritual factors, and made worse by the fact that we, as a society, have lost touch with the spiritual concerns surrounding death.  Many people are unprepared for death and fearful as it approaches, and this fear is promoted by media accounts of the suffering experienced by the dying.  Often the physical symptoms can be dealt with but the suffering may well remain.  It may be that the call for legalised euthanasia is motivated by a desire to avoid the dying process itself.  In a world of instant gratification, there is a reluctance to endure any hardship, even when we are dying.  If the suffering patients wish to avoid is related to metaphysical or spiritual concerns, then not only physical but also the social, psychological, relational, existential, cultural and spiritual concerns need to be addressed.

While Christians do not fully understand problems of evil and suffering (2 Thessalonians 2:7), we know that suffering is inevitable in this life because we live in a fallen world. But we also know that life is not meaningless, death is not meaningless, and that we can have hope amidst the suffering, because death is the gateway to resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).The euthanasia debate is an expression of a community which is struggling to find meaning in life, and so finds no meaning in death (Romans 1:21).  But the answer to suffering is not euthanasia.  It lies in the good news that Jesus came to give us new life, and to finally eliminate suffering in the world to come (Revelation 21:4).

In the meantime, for those who do not share this hope, we support ongoing efforts to find ways to minimise pain and other symptoms for those at the end of life and to always treat the dying with compassion.  While acknowledging the limitations of medical practice, our challenge as Christian doctors is to transform the way we act towards the suffering and the dying, to treat them as the image–bearers of God.

What about respect for autonomy?

In the clinical context, autonomy involves self determination, freedom and independence of thought, decision and action. An emphasis on respect for patient autonomy is a relatively recent feature of medical ethics but is to be welcomed in that it promotes shared decision making with health professionals, provides an opportunity for patients to retain some control over their lives, and encourages them to be responsible for their choices and actions. Yet there are problems with the concept of autonomy in health care.  In particular, it may be naive in relation to the significant knowledge imbalance between the general public and health professionals. Further, it assumes the capacity to think, decide and act independently.  But biblically, individuals are not conceived as purely autonomous agents but as persons in a web of social interdependence.  So to speak of the right to individual choice in relation to an issue as complex as euthanasia is problematic.

The minimal, negative or “constraint” requirement of respect for patient autonomy is the obtaining of informed consent for treatment.  The argument from autonomy for euthanasia assumes that a competent patient could give a valid, informed consent to euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.  Yet this fails to address the real complexity of end-of-life issues. A range of cultural, legislative, community and family pressures place significant limitations and boundaries on individual choice, and this is especially so during a period of severe illness, when a person is at their most vulnerable and least able to be fully independent.  His or her self-worth, framed in terms of crude economic terms, is greatly diminished.  If unduly influenced by this perspective, or indirectly influenced by others who hold it, this person is greatly vulnerable to a diminished sense of self- worth.  The common good perspective recognizes that persons can be valued even in states of illness, suffering and disability.  Resource allocation must be done in a way that respects the vulnerable members of society as participants in the common good, who are called to a destiny that transcends human society.

We also note that respect for autonomy applies to health care workers as well as patients, and no doctor or nurse should be required to perform a procedure which violates their own moral commitments.

Is there really a difference between withholding or withdrawing life supporting treatments and euthanasia?

In continuity with medical tradition going back to the Hippocratic corpus, the Statements of almost all Medical Associations distinguish between the withholding or withdrawal of inappropriate, futile or unwanted life-prolonging medical treatment, on the one hand, and the administration of a lethal injection on request and physician-assisted suicide, on the other.  The former may be morally permissible, even morally required under certain circumstances, while the latter is opposed. “Letting die” by the withholding or withdrawal of treatment (treatment abatement) is non-intervention whereas euthanasia/PAS is an intervention in the course of nature.  In “letting die”, the illness causes death, whereas in euthanasia/PAS, it is the human agent.

The ability of modern medicine to prolong life by use of dialysis, respirators and artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) raises the question of when it is morally permissible for doctors to withhold or withdraw such treatment.  First, a competent informed patient may refuse potentially life-saving treatment, and a doctor must respect that refusal, since to treat without consent would be an infringement of the autonomy, dignity and moral responsibility of the patient for his or her own decisions.

But in other situations the patient may not be in a position to refuse treatment (they may be incompetent or even unconscious) and treatment abatement is a medical decision (often in consultation with relatives).  Even “life saving” or “life prolonging” treatment may be foregone if it is held to be futile or unjustifiably burdensome, or in order to respect the natural dying process at the end of life.
There is some debate about whether percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding may be withdrawn from an incompetent patient on the grounds of futility or burdensomeness.  While it is standard treatment to give ANH to brain injury patients in the early stages of illness when some hope of improvement still exists, some Catholics (and some evangelical ethicists) oppose removing ANH from people in what used to be called a persistent vegetative state (PVS), now termed post-coma unresponsiveness, at any stage.  They argue that it neither causes a great burden to the patient nor is useless, but rather is beneficial in keeping him or her alive. Further, nutrition and hydration which are “basic to human life” should be clearly distinguished from medical treatment and should always be provided to PVS patients. Others say that this position is vitalism, an elevation of mere physical existence above all other values.  It is argued that, for a patient in PVS, the preservation of life in such a state is not a benefit, and when medical treatment can offer no hope of pursuing the spiritual goods of life, there is no duty to preserve life and the patient should be allowed to die.

Yet discerning when it is time for the patient to die, time to withhold or withdraw treatment, is not straightforward, and there is a tendency for doctors to over treat at the end of life, so that some people the fear that the process of dying may be prolonged unnecessarily.  It is important that patients are aware of the rights they have to refuse any, even life-prolonging, treatment.  Such an act is an ethical option for a competent patient.  Instigation of advance planning in healthcare enables patients to retain control of healthcare decisions even after they become mentally incompetent, and should be promoted.

Medicine has a mandate for its goals of preserving and prolonging life in both the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:26-28, and the redemption project of healing the sick (eg Matthew 10:8) as a sign that the Kingdom of God has broken into this world to begin to reverse the effects of sin.  However, we know that medicine cannot break the power of sin, nor the power of death.  Medicine is not the Saviour. Medicine does not give eternal life. And since we are mortal, death is both an enemy to be resisted and the gateway to resurrection life.  So there comes a time when death is no longer to be resisted, but acknowledged.

What about “terminal sedation?”

The term “terminal sedation” is used in a number of different ways. It may be used to indicate sedation in the terminal phase (last few days) of an illness, in which case there is no evidence that it shortens life.  But “terminal sedation” may also be used to indicate a quite different practice, where the patient need not be imminently dying.  Sedation is sometimes used in order to render the patient unconscious so that they can avoid eating and drinking without discomfort.  ANH is also withheld with the result that the patient dies, either through dehydration and/or through the effects of immobility and inhibition of coughing, producing sputum retention and hypostatic pneumonia.  In such a case it is possible to establish a causal link between the sedation and death, and the intention is to hasten death. It is uncertain how commonly this “sedation towards death” occurs in this country, although there was a celebrated case involving Australian euthanasia activist Dr. Philip Nitschke.  It is morally indistinguishable from euthanasia.

But there is a third category of “terminal sedation”, somewhere between sedation in the imminently dying and “sedation towards death”, where sedation is given to relieve uncontrolled suffering and most likely does shorten life, but at the same time, death is not the intended, merely foreseen result of treatment.  This is the only category of terminal sedation where the Principle of Double Effect needs to be considered, and might arguably be invoked in order to provide a moral justification for the practice, although this remains controversial. Some authors argue that if heavy sedation is administered to any but the imminently dying, it ought to be accompanied at least by artificial hydration.

Conclusion

Moral opposition to both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a longstanding feature of both the medical and the Judeo-Christian tradition for good reasons.  This does not mean that Christian doctors do not respond with compassion to those suffering at the end of life.  We are best equipped to support patients with advanced disease by learning how to discern when a patient is indeed dying, and to give appropriate care, including referral when necessary.  Provision of competent and compassionate care will do much to ease the suffering of dying patients and their loved ones, and we have a moral duty to provide it.  However we continue to oppose the legalization of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.
----------------------
• Australian Medical Association. (2007) The Role of the Medical Practitioner in End of Life Care – 2007. http://ama.com.au/node/2803
• Sykes N, Thorns A.  The use of opioids and sedatives at the end of life. Lancet Oncology 2003; 4:312-318; Good P. P. D. Good , P. J. R. a. J. C. and N. M. M. H. (2005). "Effects of opioids and sedatives on survival in an Australian inpatient palliative care population." Intern Med J 35: 512-517.
• NHMRC. Ethical guidelines for the care of people in post-coma unresponsiveness (vegetative state) or a minimally responsive state. (2008). Australian Government, p. 36-7.
• Kissane, D. W., Street, A., & Nitschke, P. (1998). Seven Deaths in Darwin: Case Studies under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in Northern Territory, Australia. The Lancet, 352(9134), 1097-1102.
• The Principle of Double Effect (PDE) specifies that when an action has two possible effects, one good and one bad, it is morally permissible if the action:
1. is not in itself immoral  
2. is undertaken only with the intention of achieving the possible good effect, without intending the possible bad      effect although it may be foreseen
3. does not bring about the possible good effect by means of the possible bad effect, and
4. is undertaken for a proportionately grave reason (Sulmasy, D. P., & Pellegrino, E. D. (1999). The Rule of Double Effect. Clearing Up the Double Talk. Archives of Internal Medicine, 159(6), 545-550,  p.545).
----------------------
In the medical context, PDE means that “it can be morally good to shorten a patient’s life as a foreseen and accepted but unintended side effect of an action undertaken for a good reason, even if it is agreed that intentionally killing the patient or shortening the patient’s life is wrong” (Boyle, J. (1997). Intentions, Christian Morality and Bioethics: Puzzles of Double Effect. Christian Bioethics, 3(2), 87-88.)

Authors
Denise Cooper Clarke
Megan Best
Michael Burke
Lachlan Dunjey
Kuruvilla George
Paul Mercer

Approved by CMDFA board November 6, 2010.

Christian Doctors Oppose Euthanasia Moves

Christian Medical and Dental Association of Australia

Press Release, 1st October 2010

http://www.cmdfa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120:press-release-1st-october-2010&catid=15:working-papers&Itemid=16

TODAY The Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship of Australia (CMDFA) Ethics Committee opposed moves to legalise euthanasia in Australian Parliaments.

Executive Officer of CMDFA, Dr Michael Burke, stated ‘We affirm the dignity of all human beings and are committed to the relief of suffering and the provision of compassionate care in partnership with our patients and their loved ones. We firmly oppose any intervention which intentionally hastens death as a means of relieving suffering.’

The Association’s website explains that while CMDFA members do not oppose the withdrawal of futile treatment which artificially prolongs life in those whose death is inevitable and imminent, as Christians they believe the role of the physician is to first do no harm.  The CMDFA ethics committee members are therefore opposed to a change of the law which would put them in the contradictory position of facilitating the death of people under their care.

Dr Burke further explained, ‘Euthanasia bills have been repeatedly debated and usually defeated. In the presence of suffering, a comprehensive and integrated approach is needed that addresses the physical, social and psycho-spiritual needs of all concerned. Hence we call for the continued strengthening of palliative care services and their increased accessibility for all Australian citizens. We call on all medical professionals to retain their commitment to patient centred, evidence based, Hippocratic medical care.’

Legalisation of euthanasia risks devaluation of the lives of the sick as well as creating an environment where the rights of vulnerable patients are threatened. Government reviews from the Netherlands repeatedly show that a significant number of patients are given euthanasia without explicit request or consent, despite the guidelines which aim to protect them.

‘For these reasons’ said Dr Burke, ‘we encourage further development of comprehensive palliative care services as a solution to the suffering of those in our community.  Furthermore, we are firmly opposed to any moves to legalise euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in Australia’.

25. Note that, The Priceless Life Centre, http://pricelesslifecentre.org.au/, Phone 1800 090777, is active in giving hope to those who have experienced an unexperienced pregnancy, and that the following statement is found on its web site:

Every year many thousands of unexpected pregnancies occur in Australia. This can be a very distressing time and often women and men who want information and support don’t know where to turn. In Queensland the Priceless Life Centre offers hope for those experiencing an unexpected pregnancy. We also provide quality values based education programs.

We are committed to ensuring women and men have access to accurate information and the support they require to make real and informed choices when pregnant. Our phone line is Queensland wide and we have opportunity for face to face appointments at Mt Gravatt, Alderley and South Brisbane.

The Priceless Life Centre is based on the Christian principles of valuing and respecting the lives of all people. The Priceless Life Centre was previously known as the Pregnancy Problem Centre. The PLC was established in 1996 and is a non-profit organisation.

Abortion Referral is not part of our service.

26. Request Sessions and Communicants who have an involvement with The Priceless Life Centre, to advise the Public Questions and Communications Committee of their assessment of the effectiveness of The Priceless Life Centre.

27. Note that, The Get a Grip Youth Wellbeing Project, is the strategic development and release of innovative youth sex educational programs focused on well-being, for youth aged 13 – 15 years, and that the following statement is found on its web site:
GET A GRIP teenz™ is for the youth of Australia. This eight week program for Grade 8 / 9 students (13 years and above), promotes smart choices and healthy relationships by answering the “Why?" and "Why not?” of sexual relationships.  Teen Guyz and Girlz are encouraged to question the prevailing social attitudes, find value within the precious gift of sex, and gain a greater understanding of life, relationships and the body.

28. Request Sessions and Communicants who have an involvement with, The Get a Grip Youth Wellbeing Project, to advise the Public Questions and Communications Committee of their assessment of the effectiveness of The Get a Grip Youth Wellbeing Project.

29. Write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs requesting them to ensure that the newly created nation of South Sudan retains its sovereignty and that they take action to cease intrusions and disturbance by North Sudan and to ensure than South Sudan retains all its territory as set out by the signed peace agreement.

Extracted from the records of the General Assembly by me:

(Rev) R Clark Clerk of Assembly

2010

At Brisbane, and within the Assembly Hall, Clayfield College, Brisbane, at 7.30 pm on the 23June 2010 on which the General Assembly being duly constituted.

INTER ALIA:

MINUTE 99

99. Deliverance as a Whole

The deliverance as a whole was approved as follows:

That the Assembly:

1. Give thanks to God for the commitment of the Late Rev Don Smith to the work of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and for his commitment to the extension of the Kingdom of Heaven.

2. Commend membership of the Public Questions and Communications Committee to Assembly Commissioners when nominating members to Assembly Committees.

3. Encourage Sessions to appoint a Community-Interest Contact Person, (with email access) within the Congregation, to be a link with the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and to promote activity within the community by the Congregation.

4. Commend the Public Questions and Communications Committee web site http://www.answerstolive.com/ to the Church.

5. Commend the period of prayer and fasting in October, with Prayer Notes supplied by the GAA Church and Nation Committee, to Sessions for use in the life of Congregations.

6. Appoint Mrs Mendy Campbell, Mr Don Lewis and Rev. David Niven to represent the Presbyterian Church of Queensland at the Annual General Meeting of DrugARM.

7. Request the Representatives of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, as an ordinary member of the Drug Awareness and Relief Foundation (Australia) (DrugARM), to take all appropriate action to change the policy of DrugARM in relation to accepting support from funds generated by gambling, and to bring a report to the 2011 Assembly.

8. Commend DrugARM to the prayerful support of the Church.

9. Request Presbyteries and Sessions to be aware that there are ongoing moves to decriminalise abortion in Queensland and to establish a good working relationship with their local Member of the Legislative Assembly.

10. Note that leading up to Christmas 2009, Family Radio FM96.5 ran a series of spots highlighting the Presbyterian Church of Queensland in Brisbane.

11. Request the Public Questions and Communications Committee to continue to highlight the Presbyterian Church of Queensland by the effective use of the Media in pre-evangelism.

12. Write to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with a copy to the media, expressing concern as to the state of affairs of human rights abuse in relation to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly (in particular such abuses against Christians) in China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Somalia, The Sudan and Zimbabwe; requesting the Australian Government to take all appropriate action in addressing the situation in these countries, so that the citizens may live in peace with freedom of worship and of association.

13. Note that the Queensland Parliament has added a Preamble to the Constitution of Queensland as follows:

 “The people of Queensland, free and equal citizens of Australia:

(a) intend through this Constitution to foster the peace, welfare and good government of Queensland; and

(b) adopt the principle of the sovereignty of the people, under the rule of law, and the system of representative and responsible government, prescribed by this Constitution; and

(c) honour the Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the First Australians, whose lands, winds and waters we all now share; and pay tribute to their unique values, and their ancient and enduring cultures, which deepen and enrich the life of our community; and

(d) determine to protect our unique environment; and

(e) acknowledge the achievements of our forebears, coming from many backgrounds, who together faced and overcame adversity and injustice, and whose efforts bequeathed to us, and future generations, a realistic opportunity to strive for social harmony; and

(f) resolve, in this the 150th anniversary year of the establishment of Queensland, to nurture our inheritance, and build a society based on democracy, freedom and peace.

Effect of preamble:

The Parliament does not intend by the preamble to:

(a) create in any person any legal right or give rise to any civil cause of action; or

(b) affect in any way the interpretation of this Act or of any other law in force in Queensland.”

14. Note that the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) has released the draft K–12 Australian Curriculum in English, mathematics, science and history for online viewing and consultation. It is available at www.australiancurriculum.edu.au. For K-10, the consultation closed on 30 May 2010; and for the senior secondary years, the consultation will close on 30 July 2010. This consultation website enables everyone to read, review, download or print the draft Australian Curriculum. It also enables individuals and groups to provide feedback by commenting directly on the draft curriculum and completing an optional online survey.

15. Advise Members of the House, who are considering making a submission to the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, of the following:

15.1. We have a responsibility as Christians and as citizens to contribute to public debate and bear faithful witness, whether in the courts of kings or in the public square (Jer 36:1-32; Acts 17:17).  In so doing we follow the example of the apostles and prophets before us, even if it means that we must at times be critical of the decisions or actions of political rulers (eg, I Kings 18:18; Mark 6:18; John 19:11), for God’s call is to evangelise and teach entire nations(Jer 1:5; Acts 2:14; 9:15; 17:22; Matt 28:18-20).  The Word of God gives us the standards according to which we ought to make judgement and expose that which is evil (I Cor 6:2; Eph 5:8-14; II Tim 3:16), always remembering that the ultimate Judge is the Lord (I Cor 5:12-13; cf Matt7:1; Rom 2:3). 

15.2. The private and public education of children is a long-standing concern of Scripture (Deut4:9-10; 6:7-9; 11:19; 31:12-13; Ps 78:5; Prov 6:20; Acts 5:42; Eph 6:1-4; II Tim 3:14-15;cf II Chron 17:7-9; Neh 8:1-7).Scripture teaches that all wisdom, knowledge and instruction comes ultimately from God (Ex 4:12; 24:12).  There is indeed benefit in being educated in the best that the world has to offer (Dan 1:4), but what is most important is the wisdom of knowing and following the ways of God (Dan 1:8-21).  The best education is one that trains and teaches children the Truth, the Way and the Life, and we know that all of these are in Jesus Christ our Lord (John 14:6).  Thus, we are admonished to set our minds on that which is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy (Phil 4:8) and to avoid the deeds of the sinful flesh(Gal 5:19-21).  These revealed truths provide us with the standards by which we should assess and comment on the proposed national school curriculum.

16. Request the Public Questions and Communications Committee to provide a summary of ethical decisions of the Assembly, since Church Union, to the Clerk of Assembly for distribution to Sessions, Presbyteries, Standing and Special Committees, Emmanuel College, Fairholme College, Grace College, PMSA, PresCare, St Andrew’s Toowoomba Hospital, and any other appropriate organisation(s).

Extracted from the records of the General Assembly by me- (Rev) R Clark- Clerk of Assembly

2009

EXTRACT MINUTE

At Brisbane, and within the Assembly Hall, Clayfield College, Brisbane, at 7.30 pm on the 24 June 2009 on which the General Assembly being duly constituted.

INTER ALIA:

MINUTE 102

106.     Deliverance as a whole

The deliverance as a whole was approved as follows: 

That the Assembly:

1. Commend Membership of the Public Questions and Communications Committee to Assembly Commissioners in nominating members to Assembly Committees.
2. Encourage Sessions to appoint a Community-Interest Contact Person, (with email access) within the Congregation to be a link with the Public Questions and Communications Committee and to promote activity within the community by the Congregation.
3. Commend the Community Interest web page within the Presbyterian Church of Queensland to the Church.
4. Commend the period of prayer and fasting in October, with Prayer Notes supplied by the GAA Church and Nation Committee, to Sessions for use in the life of Congregations.
5. Note that the GAA Church and Nation Committee made a submission to the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21^st Century project, which may be viewed on at http://www.canfederal.presbyterian.org.au/.
6. Appoint Mrs Mendy Campbell, Mr Don Lewis and the Rev David Niven to represent the Presbyterian Church of Queensland at the Annual General Meeting of DrugARM.
7. Note that on Tuesday, 9^th June 2009, a meeting was held with Mr Peter Henderson, a Board Member of DrugArm, Mr Dennis Young, the Executive Officer of DrugArm, and Rev. David Niven, Rev. Les Percy and Mr Neville Taylor, to discuss the matter of DrugArm accepting funding from gambling.
8. Request the Representatives of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, as an ordinary member of the Drug Awareness and Relief Foundation (Australia) (DrugARM), to take all appropriate action to change the policy of DrugARM in relation to accepting support from funds generated by gambling, and to bring a report to the 2010 Assembly.
9. Commend DrugARM to the prayerful support of the Church.
10. Request Presbyteries and Sessions to be aware that there are ongoing moves to decriminalise abortion in Queensland and to establish a good working relationship with their local Member of the Legislative Assembly.
11. Note that leading up to Christmas, Family Radio FM96.5 ran a series of spots highlighting the Presbyterian Church of Queensland in Brisbane, together with spots on the Gold Coast and Toowoomba through associated stations and that leading up to Easter a similar series of spots were run in Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville and Cairns.
12. Request the Public Questions and Communications Committee continue to highlight the Presbyterian Church of Queensland by the effective us of the Media.
13. Write to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with a copy to the media, expressing concern as to the state of affairs in Zimbabwe, and requesting the Australian Government take all appropriate action in addressing the situation in Zimbabwe so that the citizens may live in peace with freedom of worship and of association.
14. Communicate again with the Presbyterian Church of Zimbabwe assuring the Church of the prayerful support of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland.
15. Commend PresAid to the prayerful support of Sessions and Congregations as a preferred recipient of diaconal aid.
16. Note that the Christian Church in India has been subject to severe persecution and commend the Church to the prayerful support of Congregations.
17. Note the Submission on Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21^st Century issued by the Moderator and the Clerk, with the concurrence of the Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.

Submission by the Presbyterian Church of Queensland

Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century

Introduction

The federal government has rightly expressed a desire to see social cohesion and harmony promoted within the Australian community.  As a denomination of Christians, the Presbyterian Church of Queensland similarly seeks to promote peace, justice and harmony within our society.  Jesus Christ, reminding us of the teaching of Moses, instructs us that we ought to love our neighbour as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18; Luke 10:27) and indeed explained that this means we ought to love, rather than hate, even those who would make themselves our enemies (Matthew 5:43-46).  Expounding the teaching of Christ, the Apostle Paul teaches us to bless those who curse us, never to pay back evil for evil to anyone, to respect what is right in the sight of all men and, as far as possible and so far as it depends on us, to be at peace with all men (Romans 12:17-18). 

As Christians, we have a message of good news – the love of God expressed in the sacrificial life of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ – to share with all.  We know that the message of God's redeeming grace is not received by all, but we have no interest in coercion of any kind.  The Westminster Confession of Faith, to which our denomination subscribes, teaches that ‘God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men’ (WCF 20:2).  We are committed therefore to speaking and living what we believe to be the truth, but it all times ‘speaking the truth in love’ (Ephesians 4:15) and expressing this love through lives of service and compassion directed especially to the sick, the imprisoned and the stranger (Matthew 25:34-40; Luke 10:29-37). 

Consistent with these principles, Christians of many denominations, including those of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, have worked hard to contribute to the well-being of the Australian community.  It is surely not necessary to document in detail the many ways in which Christians have provided social welfare services, health care, education, and much else, all contributing fundamentally to the social fabric of the community.  We therefore believe strongly in the principle of freedom of religion, meaning the freedom of religious individuals and groups to put their religious beliefs into practice.  We are concerned that there are some sectors in Australian society which do not respect or even understand the valuable contribution that Christians have made. It would be extremely harmful for our society if ‘freedom of religion’ were to be understood as ‘freedom from religion’.  There is a real sense in which every perspective is ‘religious’, even the humanistic.  We affirm the freedom of individuals and groups to express their religious beliefs in practice within the proper constraints of law. 

The following submissions are made, therefore, praying to God on behalf of all who are in authority in this nation, that we may be at liberty to lead quiet and peaceful lives in all godliness and dignity (I Timothy 2:2).  Several of our submissions are strongly critical of various policies recently adopted in certain Australian jurisdictions.  These criticisms, though serious, are voiced in a spirit of cooperation and concern for the well-being of the people of this country. 

1:   Evaluation of 1998 HREOC Report on Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief

1. What are areas of concern regarding the freedom to practice and express faith and beliefs, within your faith community and other such communities?

Our major area of concern regarding the freedom to practice and express faith and beliefs concerns the entirely counterproductive impact of several government measures ostensibly intended to protect and maintain religious freedom and inter-religious harmony.  In particular, we express grave concern about the practical impact of religious vilification laws.  Our special concern is with religious vilification laws which prohibit communicative acts which are neither intended nor likely to encourage acts of physical violence and which give private parties and organisations the capacity to institute complaints, initiate investigations or pursue legal or quasi-legal proceedings.  Where such religious vilification laws have been introduced, such laws have been – and are likely to continue to be – used by some religious bodies in order to:

•  particular religious beliefs and practices from open debate and legitimate criticism;
•  pressure on the adherents of other religions to refrain from engaging in robust discussion of competing truth claims;
•  the adherents of other religions who engage in religious debate and discussion as engaging in unlawful and antisocial activities;
•  the freedom of adherents of other religions to exercise aspects of their religious liberty, including the liberty to freely propagate the tenets of their religion, and to compare those tenets with those of alternative religions.[1]

Religious vilification laws apply the organised power of the state to intervene in interreligious debate.  Civil courts and tribunals are not appropriate venues for the adjudication of such disputes.  Religious vilification laws involve an illegitimate entanglement of the state and state power in religious matters.  Even where the sanctions are entirely civil in nature, the threat of litigation, including the personal and financial costs of litigation, and of being required to publish written apologies in the media, constitute what are in substance (although not in form) pecuniary penalties hardly distinguishable in practical effect from the imposition of fines and similar criminal penalties. 

Concern is also expressed that religious vilification laws typically allow special dispensations from the general application of the law to artists, scientists, scholars and the media.  We see no compelling justification for this special privileging, although we note, with some irony, the similarity between the treatment of these particular professions today and role of the court-prophets of biblical times, themselves captive to the political imperatives of those in power at the time. 

2. Have new issues emerged since this report was published in 1998 relating to expression of faith? 

As a denomination based in Queensland, we express concern about Brisbane City Council’s brochure entitled Islam in Brisbane.  It is not unlikely that 1998 HREOC Report gave rise to the publication.  Our concern is that Christian and Jewish beliefs have been misrepresented in it.[2]  There are very clear distinctions between Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths, which the publication overlooks. Peace between religions cannot be obtained by artificially eliminating distinctions.  When public money is used by government agencies to misrepresent religious beliefs, this is more likely to aggravate, rather than ameliorate, religious conflict.

3. Is there adequate protection against discrimination based on religion or belief, and protection of ability to discriminate in particular contexts? 

There is currently insufficient protection of the ability of religious believers and religious organisations to engage in legitimate discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs and convictions.  The existing exemptions for religious organisations from the general effect of antidiscrimination laws, particularly on the grounds of religious belief and personal practices and lifestyle should be maintained, and indeed expanded to protect religious believers and religious organizations who conscientiously wish to conduct businesses, pursue callings and provide social services as an expression of their religious convictions. 

4. How are federal and state and territory governments managing incitement to religious hatred, and the question of control and responsibility?

In connection with our response to question 1 above, those State and Territory governments that have introduced religious vilification laws have made a very grave error of judgment.  Those jurisdictions that have refrained from doing so, have acted wisely and prudently.

5. How well have the recommendations of Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief been implemented by the various state and federal governments?

This question presupposes that there is an automatic imperative that Article 18 must be implemented by Australian governments.  We recognise that at international law, Australia is a party to the ICCPR and has undertaken international obligations in that respect.  However, we do not believe that international treaties should be implemented automatically or uncritically.  While we acknowledge the importance of many of the lofty aspirations expressed in various international human right standards, we are conscious that international treaties such as the ICCPR came about through negotiations between states parties whose motives were not all entirely above reproach and that the decisions of the Human Rights Committee, for example, have not always been immune from political manipulation.  The existence of Article 18 does not exempt the political institutions of our country from the responsibility to exercise discernment and sound judgment when approaching the question of its domestic implementation. 

2:  Religion and the State – the Constitution, roles and responsibilities

Section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act states that:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The Constitution

1. Is this section of the Constitution an adequate protection of freedom of religion and belief?

Within the bounds of the Commonwealth constitution, Christianity has played a vital role in supporting our society’s moral framework.  Biblical beliefs are behind the development and health of our country, the development of all our major political parties and trade unions, our first schools and notions such as brotherhood and mateship. In the 19^th Century, when science had the world believing aboriginal people were another species, Christians recognised them as brothers and preserved their lives.[3]

Section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution as currently interpreted by the High Court provides broadly adequate protection for freedom of religion and belief in this country.  The framers of the Australian Constitution limited the scope of section 116 to the Commonwealth deliberately, believing that it was beyond their remit to propose substantial changes to the State constitutions, and expressing confidence in parliamentary institutions to adequately protect individual freedoms, including freedom of religion.  We do not support any changes being made either to the federal or the state constitutions in this respect.  As the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution recognized, it is inappropriate for a federal constitution to contain provisions dealing directly with the powers of the States in matters unrelated to the task of federating the Australian colonies into a federal commonwealth.  Altering the language of s 116 would have the potential to destabilize the approach that the High Court has taken in its interpretation.  We would be particularly concerned lest that introduce an interpretation of s 116 which tends to marginalise religion or to exclude it from the public sphere along the lines that the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution have been interpreted. 

2. How should the Australian Government protect freedom of religion and belief? 

We are extremely concerned about the possibility that the Australian government will take steps to alter the existing constitutional and legal treatment of religious matters, whether in the form of a proposed amendment to the Constitution or in the form of a Religious Freedom Act.  We see no urgent need for change, and we are genuinely fearful of the unintended consequences of further government intervention in these fields.  The grave mistakes made by some of the State and Territory governments in intervening in religious matters in recent years do not fill us with confidence concerning the capacity of the federal government to avoid these or other mistakes.

The scope of the Religious Freedom Act proposed in the Report is not entirely clear.  It was recommended that the Act should apply to ‘individuals, corporations, public and private bodies and all other legal persons who may be subject to Commonwealth legislation’.  A Commonwealth Religious Freedom Act could not bind the Commonwealth itself, as the powers of the Commonwealth are conferred by the Constitution and a Commonwealth statute cannot bind future Parliaments.  However, the States are legal persons who can be made subject to Commonwealth legislation.  Accordingly, it seems that the legal effect of a Religious Freedom Act, if validly enacted, would be to control or limit the powers of the States, as well as to place obligations upon public bodies and private organizations and individuals. 

The legitimacy of any attempt to bind the State Parliaments in this respect is seriously in doubt.  We recognise that the High Court of Australia has so interpreted the external affairs power to enable the Commonwealth to legislate to implement Australia's obligations under international treaties on any subject matter whatsoever, but we observe that this decision was arrived at by a closely divided court and, although now well-established in law, has been accompanied by political controversy ever since.  We also acknowledge that the Commonwealth has used this power to enact various anti-discrimination laws.  Despite these developments, to rely on the external affairs power to enact a Religious Freedom Act would involve the Commonwealth in an unprecedented interference with the self-governing capacities of the people of each State, particularly in relation to religious matters.  Only some of the Australian States and Territories have chosen to adopt legislative protections for rights, and none of these provisions strictly bind the legislative powers of the Parliaments.  For the Commonwealth Parliament to impose Religious Freedom Act on the States would be to nullify the deliberate decision taken by several States not to adopt one themselves. 

3. When considering the separation of religion and state, are there any issues that presently concern you?

We are very concerned about a tendency towards greater government entanglement with religious matters, particularly through religious vilification laws, antidiscrimination laws and bills or charters of rights.  We believe there is a tendency of government to overreact to perceived threats to religious harmony in this country caused by perceptions of increasing religious diversity.  The fundamental causes of religious harmony are themselves personal, social and ultimately religious.  Speaking for the particular Christian faith community to which we adhere, we are conscious of the lessons that have been learned by those of Christian faith through reflection on the Christian scriptures, against a long history of shifting relationships between church and state, concerning the need to maintain tolerant and loving attitudes towards those of other faiths. 

When considering the separation of religion and state, we again draw attention to the publication Islam in Brisbane as an issue of concern. This document should have been written without the misrepresentation of Christian and Jewish beliefs. A government department should not be permitted to sponsor a document that presences as fact something which is not a fact, and to do so at the expense of tax payers and persons of other faiths.  The Council has been asked to edit this document but has refused to do so. The Council seems to have allied itself with one small part of the community with no regard for the rest of the community. This document does not “ensure the wider community is better informed about Islam and Muslim ways of life.” (Islam in Brisbane) It gives a false impression about the links between Christianity, Judaism and Islam and false grounds for peace.

4. Do religious or faith-based groups have undue influence over government and/or does the government have undue influence over religious or faith based groups?

We do not generally think that religious and faith-based groups have undue influence over government.  We endorse efforts by those of religious faith to encourage governments to maintain decent moral standards, and we have no pressing concerns about government assistance to religious schools and government support of religious charitable organizations. 

5. Would a legislated national Charter of Rights add to these freedoms of religion and belief?

Paradoxically, we do not believe that a legislated national charter of rights would enhance religious freedom in this country.  We appreciate the distinction that is drawn between constitutional and legislative bills of rights, as well as of the varying roles that can be given to the courts, in their relationship to parliaments, under such schemes.  We submit that all forms of bills of rights constitute an increase in power accorded to the courts, and we are deeply skeptical about the capacity of court-oriented processes to enhance religious freedom or promote religious harmony.  Institutions of government, whether executive, legislative or judicial, generally do best when they do least to interfere in religious matters.  While we are fearful of excessive executive and legislative interference with freedom of religion, we are equally fearful of excessive judicial interference in such matters.  This may seem paradoxical for those tutored in contemporary liberal-democratic discourse, but we express simple skepticism of the capacity of liberal institutions of government to further enhance religious liberty in the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves at this particular point in time in this country.  We are generally satisfied with the current modus vivendi, and we express sincere concern about proposals to alter the current religio-political settlement. 

3:  Religion and the State - practice and expression

1. What are some consequences of the emergence of faith-based services as major government service delivery agencies? 

Christian faith based services have always existed in this country and continue to grow. However, we express grave concern that Christian based medical services are being challenged by changes in the law requiring medical practitioners to compromise their moral and biblical convictions in the way that they conduct their medical practices. Christian medical staff cannot in good conscience encourage, carry out or facilitate abortions.  The recent amendment to the law in Victoria requiring medical practitioners to refer patients to practitioners who will carry out an abortion is a major and very grave concern. 

2. How should government accommodate the needs of faith groups in addressing issues such as religion and education, faith schools, the building of places of worship, religious holy days, religious symbols and religious dress practices?

Christian faith based services work with civil governments in meeting needs with in our communities. Private Christian schools provide significant assistance in the education of our nation’s children and youth.  Without private schools governments would have a far more expensive task in the provision of education.  Christian chaplaincy services play a vital role in many places including schools, prisons and hospitals.  Many Christian faith based services are run by volunteers.  The government could better accommodate the needs of faith groups by not burdening them with a barrage of “must read literature” when they clearly demonstrate a high standard and quality of service provision.

The current legislation relating to burial practice and autopsy practice is adequate so far as we are concerned.

4:  Security issues in the aftermath of September 11

1.   a)  Have the changes in federal and state laws affected any religious groups, and if so how?

      b)  How should this be addressed?

2.   How should the Government balance physical security and civil liberties?

3.   Consider and comment on the relationship between law and religious or faith based communities, and issues such as legal literacy, civil liberties, dissemination of law to new immigrant communities, and the role and conduct of judiciary, courts and police. 

4.   a)  Is there religious radicalism and political extremism in Australia?

      b)  If so, what are the risks to Australia? 

The federal and State governments have, in general, responded appropriately to the terrorist threat.  National security is vitally important in maintaining the freedoms we enjoy and the freedoms that immigrants seek.  In this context, however, it is important that Muslim groups do not get preferential treatment for the improvement of their educational and work opportunities. All immigrants of non-English speaking background should receive equal assistance.

The Christian perception of Muslims is naturally coloured by the humiliating restrictions and persecution suffered by so many of their fellow Christians in Muslim countries.  Christians of genuine faith do not, however, engage in hostilities or violence against other religious groups.  As Christians in this country, we recognise the biblical injunction to do justice for the alien and sojourner in our midst (Exodus 22:21; Deuteronomy 27:19).  However, immigrants of all religious persuasions must also accept Australian institutions and both the Christian and secular roots of our society. They also must accept that the government has to be vigilant in protecting the Australian public from terrorist activity.

5.   Can you provide any examples of social exclusion in regard to religion? How and why do issues of social exclusion develop?

Evangelical and reformed Christians face social exclusion frequently in contemporary Australian society.  This, again, may seem paradoxical, given the fact that Australia is thought to be a traditionally Christian nation, has preserved many Christian traditions, and most Australians still profess to be Christian.  However, exclusion occurs, often subtly but nonetheless forcefully in many areas of social life, including:

• ·         Radio and television programs, newspaper and journal articles which mock and denigrate the Christian faith;
• ·         University courses taught by lecturers who are openly anti-Christian in their teaching;
• ·         The way in which the question of origins is taught in schools, with materialistic evolution being taught as scientific fact and creationist and intelligent design perspectives routinely dismissed.

Notwithstanding this level of social exclusion, which has to be experienced to be understood, we do not call upon governments to take special action to intervene, as we accept that those of anti-religious or anti-Christian sentiment will inevitably treat Christians in this way.  We only ask for the freedom to practice our faith as we seek to demonstrate to all people the love of Christ in the hope that they, too, might embrace his offer of salvation. 

5:  The interface of religious, political and cultural aspirations

1.   a)   How would you describe the interface between religion and politics and cultural aspirations in contemporary Australia?

      b)   What issues does this include?

2.   How should government manage tensions that develop between aspirations?

3.   How do you perceive gender in faith communities?

4.   Do you believe there is equality of gender in faith communities?

5.   What do you think should be the relationship between the right to gender equality and the right to religious freedom in Australia?

6.   Citizenship and Australian values have emerged as central issues, how do you balance integration and cultural preservation?

7.   What are reasonable expectations to have of citizens’ civic responsibility, rights, participation and knowledge?

8.   Is there a role for religious voices, alongside others in the policy debates of the nation?

The 1998 HREOC Report on Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief adopted the following definition of religion (Recommendation 2.5):

religion and belief should be given a wide meaning, covering the broad spectrum of personal convictions and matters of conscience… It should include theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs… Religion or belief should be defined as a particular collection of ideas and/or practices…

The definition should not apply to all beliefs but only to those that clearly involve issues of personal conviction, conscience or faith.

Religion is centrally a matter of personal conviction, conscience or faith.  It is not possible for those of sincere religious convictions to separate their beliefs from their daily practices, including the performance of their responsibilities as citizens in this nation.  Sincere Christians cannot avoid speaking as Christians when they engage in democratic deliberation and debate.  There is thus clearly a role for religious voices in the policy debates of the nation. We live in a democratic society and persons of all perspectives should be part of the policy debates that shape our country and our future.

6:  Technology and its implications

1. How have the new technologies affected the practice and dissemination of religious and faith communities?
2. Has new technology had an impact on your religion and/or your religious practice?
3. What issues are posed by new religions and spiritualities using new technologies?
4. Is your freedom to express your religion or beliefs hindered or helped by current media policies and practices, considering reporting, professional knowledge, ownership, and right of reply?
5. What impact do the media have on the free practice of religion in Australia and the balanced portrayal of religious beliefs and practice?
6. Are there religious or moral implications in the development of new technologies such as the internet and or mobile phones, especially in regard to religious vilification and hatred?

We observe that news media outlets often turn to mainstream liberal church organizations when seeking the “Christian perspective” on matters, and that journalists and editors often fail to present well-rounded reporting.  Mainstream media also tends to support particular political interests and often mocks alternative views on many issues, such as ‘intelligent design’, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research.  As a body of Christians, we are often conscious that positions that we hold are attacked by elements of the media that we have very little if any opportunity to reply. 

Technology increases the accessibility of information generally and makes it available in many different languages. Technology also increases the amount of mis-information which we must also deal with, as individuals and in our churches, school and communities.  Technology also increases the avenues through which abuse and assault can be channelled but not necessarily because of religious persuasion or affiliation. Moral values are definitely under attack, with minors being exposed to inappropriate material through the internet and mobile phones.

7:  Religion, cultural expression and human rights 

1. Is there satisfactory freedom of cultural expression and practice within the normative social and legal framework? 

At present there are satisfactory freedoms however we are concerned that as a result of the FRB project those freedoms may be negatively impacted.

2. Do service providers in your state or territory support the right to cultural security, safety and competence? 

3. How can the cultural aspirations and human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders be met?

Christianity has no racial or ethnic boundaries.  As a denomination, we work hard to support and encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ of all racial and ethnic boundaries.  We are especially conscious of the special material needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and have worked hard to provide them with support.  We draw attention to the extent to which it is faith-oriented people who provide much of the support and comfort to Australia’s indigenous peoples. 

4. What are the issues impacting on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities at present, and proposed solutions?

5. Are there any issues in regard to participation in the faith community for people with disabilities?

6. How is diverse sexuality perceived within faith communities?

7. How can faith communities be inclusive of people of diverse sexualities?

8. Should religious organisations (including religious schools, hospitals and other service delivery agencies) exclude people from employment because of their sexuality or their sex and gender identity?

Religious organizations should be given the freedom to discriminate where warranted and required by biblical principles.  Christian faith communities are not permitted according to biblical directives to admit to office those who practice any form of sexual immorality, such as fornication or homosexuality. Secular humanists and atheists need to understand and respect long established religious beliefs, instead of expressing intolerance towards religious institutions which cannot employ persons living lifestyles that are clearly counter to the belief and tradition of a religious group.

9. Do you consider environmental concern to be an influence shaping spiritualities and value systems?

The Bible itself provides guidelines for appropriate interaction, protection and care of our environment. 

---

[1] In Catch the Fire Ministries Inc v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284, Justice Neave observed at para [36]: ‘...statements about the religious beliefs of a group of persons could be wholly true and completely balanced and yet be almost certain to incite hatred of the group because of those beliefs.’ This observation captures the essential problem of anti-vilification laws. We do not condone hatred or its deliberate incitement, as we are enjoined by the Lord Jesus to love, rather than to hate, even our enemies (Matthew 5:43-46). But we at the same time believe that Christians have an obligation, when the proper occasion arises, to make statements about other religious beliefs, and that we should endeavour to ensure that such statements are ‘wholly true and completely balanced’. As Justice Neave observed, however, it is possible that such statements might, against all that we would hope, incite hatred in certain persons, but we are obliged to make them nonetheless, while at all times ‘speaking the truth in love’ (Ephesians 4: 15) and endeavouring to ‘live at peace with all’ (Romans 12:18).

[2] Brisbane City Council (2004) Islam in Brisbane (Acknowledgments: Mohamad Abdalla, Galila Abdel Salam, Abdul Jalal, Shirin Jamarani, Dr Renée Worringer and Annette Yunus)

[3] Jensen, Dr. Peter (2005) The Future of Jesus, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, p 97. 

18. Note the Submission on the Preamble to the Queensland Constitution issued by the Moderator and the Clerk, with the concurrence of the Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.

12 March 2009 

Mrs Dianne Reilly MP

Chair, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee

Parliament House

George Street

BRISBANE  Q  4000

Dear Mrs Reilly

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the preamble for the Queensland Constitution.  Following a perusal of the discussion paper and the other documents referred to therein, the Presbyterian Church of Queensland does not believe that the case for the insertion of a preamble has been convincingly made.  In the absence of such a case, the Church is opposed to the insertion of a preamble to the Constitution of Queensland. 

If, however, a preamble is to be added, the following points should be noted.

Yours sincerely

(Rt Rev) John Gilmour                                                                  (Rev) Ron Clark

Moderator, PCQ                                                                           Clerk of Assembly, PCQ

 19. Note the Submission on the Funding of Abortion as Part of Australian Government Aid issued by the Moderator and the Clerk, with the concurrence of the Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.

 OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF ASSEMBLY

12 March 2009

Dear Sir or Madam

Re: funding of abortion as part of Australian Government overseas aid

Through media outlets, I am led to believe that the Australian Government will now fund abortions as part of its Overseas Aid Package.  As Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, it is only fair that I should acquaint you with the Church’s stance on this issue.  Over the years, there has been much debate at the various courts of the Church on this subject and our position is as follows:

We affirm the Biblical teaching of the Right to Life, especially as this applies to the unborn child, that all life is sacred to God, and that human life is a gift of God from conception.

Further affirm that abortion is always unacceptable – except where two competent medical practitioners (other than the one under consideration to perform the abortion) deem the abortion essential to protect the life of the mother or of her prenatal child (or children), when threatened with immediate death, should the pregnancy continue and affirm if and when the rare contingency mentioned above should ever arise, everything medically possible also be done to try to ensure the continuation of the lives of all that are thus being threatened.

The Presbyterian Church of Queensland is opposed to the funding of abortions in Australia and Overseas, apart from those terminations which meet the conditions listed above. 

Yours faithfully

(Rt Rev) John Gilmour, Moderator                 (Rev) Ron Clark, Clerk of Assembly

 20.  Note the communication to the Clerk of the Church of Scotland, issued by the Moderator and the Clerk, with the concurrence of the Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.

12 May 2009

The Clerk

The Church of Scotland

121 George Street

EDINBURGH

EH2 4YN

Dear Sir

Re:  Overture by members of the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye anet Scott Rennie’s appointment to Queen’s Cross Church

We have received reports that members of the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye have forwarded an Overture to the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly anent Scott Rennie’s appointment to Queen’s Cross Church.  (The Press and Journal, Article by Cameron Brooks, Gay minister faces further hurdle).  http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1191397?UserKey&UserKey=

In the article, Lochcarron and Skye Presbytery member, Ivor MacDonald, minister of the Kilmuir and Stenscholl congregation, is quoted as saying:  “We have lodged the overture because the Assembly will have to decide on the Scott Rennie case without having previously resolved the whole issue of whether homosexual practice is compatible with Christian living.  Scott Rennie should be blocked from becoming the minister at Queen’s Cross because he has been open that he is a practising homosexual”.

The Presbyterian Church of Queensland issued the following media release on 22 June 1995:

The Presbyterian Church of Queensland affirms that -

i           All homosexual practice (and lesbianism) is an utter defiling abomination before the holiness and goodness of God, never in any circumstances to be justified.

Ii          To accept homosexual practice (even de facto) is a sin that the Church of Jesus Christ must publicly condemn and from which it should disassociate itself.

Iii          Each individual, and the nation as a whole should uphold the Biblical standard of heterosexual chastity before marriage and heterosexual fidelity within marriage to the exclusion of all other sexual practices and preferences.

We strongly condemn the decision of the Aberdeen Presbytery to sustain the call to Rev. Scott Rennie to Queens Cross Church.

We call upon the Assembly to sustain the Overture and adopt the statement;

That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, re-admit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman.

May God give the Assembly Grace and Wisdom and Courage as you debate these issues.

Yours sincerely in Christ,

(Rt Rev) John Gilmour, Moderator                       (Rev) Ron Clark, Clerk of Assembly

cc  Moderator, Church of Scotland

21.  Note the statements by the Fellowship of Confessing Churches and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.

The Fellowship of Confessing Churches reported on its website before and after the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as follows -

http://www.confessingchurch.org.uk/ga09-statement/

 General Assembly 2009 Statement  

Statement about the coming General Assembly of 2009

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland meeting in May 2009 will hear an appeal against the decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen to induct into a charge a minister who has openly declared himself to be living in a homosexual relationship. 

If the Assembly votes to support the Presbytery of Aberdeen, it will publicly declare such behaviour as acceptable and honourable for a leader in Christ’s church. This would mark a historic departure for our church from the teaching of the catholic Christian faith, and a radical deviation from the clear Scriptural pattern that recognises the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman as the only proper place for sexual intimacy—a pattern which our church has hitherto always publicly affirmed.

To now declare explicitly an active homosexual lifestyle as holy, something the Bible unambiguously calls sin, denies in the most public fashion the authority of the church’s only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. Our church would thus position itself outwith the fellowship of orthodox, credal Christianity worldwide.

Such a decision, if made by the General Assembly, would be immensely damaging for the cause of Christ in Scotland and disastrous for the national church. As an unprecedented departure from both the Kirk’s supreme standard, the Scriptures, and its subordinate standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith, by its highest court, this would inevitably force a crisis of communion. The majority of congregations of the Church of Scotland have no wish so to depart from orthodox Christian faith and practice, nor to be in fellowship with those who would so abandon the true Church of Jesus Christ.

We urgently alert all commissioners to the 2009 General Assembly to the extreme gravity of the situation. We urge the Assembly to support the position of those who stood to defend Christian orthodoxy in Aberdeen Presbytery, and ensure instead that the Church will apply and assert in practice its clear doctrinal position on all matters of marriage and human sexuality, by refusing to condone homosexual practice in general, and among its leaders in particular. We further urge all commissioners to support the Overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye, that our General Assembly may make its will known clearly and decisively on this issue for the future.

We stand thus to publicly affirm our love, honour and deep respect for all our Christian brothers and sisters who wrestle painfully with homosexual temptation but fight faithfully to live lives of purity, following Christ Jesus as his true disciples. We assure them of all pastoral support, care and mutual encouragement as they, along with us, ‘strive…for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.’ (Hebrews 12:14)

We further wish to affirm our continuing solidarity in fellowship with Christian churches worldwide who hold and maintain the historic faith, doctrine, and discipline of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church, once for all delivered to the saints in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

Despite the depth of feeling across the churches of Scotland and the world about this matter, as reflected by the numbers signing this statement, the General Assembly voted (23rd May 2009) to back Aberdeen Presbytery by 326 votes to 267 (there were clearly many abstentions). This has created a precedent for all presbyteries, and sends a clear signal to the world that our denomination has departed from the teaching of the Christian Scriptures, upon which its very existence depends.  It is a deeply painful day for all who love Christ and his gospel. May all in our churches remember the warning words of our Lord (Revelation 3:3), and seek earnestly to repent before it is too late.

22. Note the Submission to the National Human Rights Consultation issued by the Moderator and the Clerk, with the concurrence of the Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.

Submission to the National Human Rights Consultation

The terms of the inquiry:

1.            The central questions posed by the National Human Rights Consultation (NHRC) harbour presuppositions which themselves need to be exposed and discussed.  We are initially asked: which human rights (including corresponding responsibilities) should be protected and promoted; are these human rights currently sufficiently protected and promoted; and how could Australia better protect and promote human rights?  The questions are posed in such a way as to make the ‘language of rights’ the terms in which the inquiry will be undertaken and submissions are to be made.  At the outset, we express reservations about this way of proceeding.  We are not convinced that the health of our community will be best served by framing the discussion as a conversation about rights, even when qualified by reference to corresponding responsibilities.

2.            Rights are the language of legal entitlements.  When used in a moral context (which is not, we note, the context in which the NHRC is using the term), rights are the language of moral entitlements.  Our society, we acknowledge, is today dominated by the language of rights.  We do not consider this to be an altogether healthy thing.  Alas, specific wrongs are all too often perpetrated against persons, and we would want to be among the first, wherever possible, to support and protect such persons against such abuse (and indeed to repent and make good any abuses for which we might, alas, be responsible).  But at the same time, we hear a cacophony of demands in our society for the satisfaction of individual wants and expectations, couched in the language of rights.  And as individuals, we find in our own selves a tendency to make similar demands.  But this is not the ethic which was taught to us by Jesus Christ.  By his example and teaching, we learn that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and it is better to be personally wronged than to insist on one’s rights.

3.            This does not mean that we, as a denomination of Christians, believe that there is no place for a system of law administered by civil authorities, nor that it is illegitimate for a Christian to initiate legal proceedings.  But we regard the public administration of law and the initiation of legal proceedings as far from an ideal situation, and we express concern lest the National Human Rights Consultation lose sight of the fact that a society in which individuals are frequently and characteristically demanding their rights is a society that has already failed to live up to what ought to be its best aspirations.

Abstract rights and the politicisation of judges

4.            Accepting, therefore, the need for us to make our submissions in the language of rights, we wish to make a second preliminary point of great importance.  Rights as articulated in charters or bills of rights are necessarily abstract propositions which are meant to play a part in practical deliberations about the content of the law, its application to specific circumstances and the determination of appropriate remedies.  We acknowledge that the moral reasoning necessarily required by the making of legal determinations must rest upon general propositions about appropriate behaviour.  However, many have pointed out that a charter of rights, expressed in abstract language, is necessarily going to be the subject of unpredictable interpretation and that to the extent that this task is given to judges, very significant decision-making power is thus transferred from elected representatives to a small group of unelected officials chosen for their mastery of the technicalities of the law, but not necessarily better equipped to make the open-ended judgments required by the application of a charter of rights. 

5.            In this connection, further, we point out that judges are highly respected in our community precisely because they perform their duties with integrity and reliability in terms of well-established techniques of legal reasoning.  However, if judges are given a role beyond this and are asked to pronounce upon the large social questions addressed by a charter of rights, then judges will find themselves mired in all manner of political controversies currently confined to the elected branches of government, and general societal respect for judges will be consequently undermined.  Public respect for institutions like the courts is of profound importance in our society, and we express caution lest that respect be undermined by a charter of rights. 

6.            We make these observations, not only to repeat and endorse a commonly made but very important line of criticism of charters of rights, but also to point out that if the language of rights must be adopted, and the question of a charter of rights is to be addressed, our focus ought to be on the specific judgments about particular cases that will have to be made under a charter of rights, whether these judgments are made by elected legislatures or unelected judicial committees.  Indeed, if the language of rights is to be used, we consider it much more relevant, prudent and accurate to reserve the terms ‘right’ and ‘duty’ to the concrete, legitimate expectations of a specific person in a particular set of circumstances, all things considered.  However, this is not what charters of rights do.  Rather, they contain references to ‘rights’ expressed in the most abstract of terms, which are in turn subject to qualifications by limitation clauses which are themselves highly abstract in formulation.  We certainly consider that, if a charter of rights is to be enacted, its content (in terms of the abstract rights which it actually contains or does not contain, and the language in which its qualification clauses are recorded) is a vital and important issue, which will have consequences either way.  But we express concern and significant reservations about the idea that, provided the utmost care is taken, an appropriate charter of rights can be drafted, provided we get the wording right.  In our submission what will matter most is not what the charter says, but how the charter is interpreted and applied, whether by the judiciary, the legislature or the government and its agencies.  No matter how careful the drafting of a charter of rights, the words used are not always or even ordinarily going to control or dictate its application in contentious cases. 

7.            Indeed, every charter right will imply a corresponding duty, and in imposing a corresponding duty, a charter of rights will imply a recalibration of the freedoms of others.  Rights and duties are in this sense a zero-sum game: there will be winners and there will be losers.  It is not at all evident to us that our society has, as a whole, drawn the lines in inappropriate places.  In what follows, therefore, the submissions we wish to make concern a set of very specific issues which are likely to be determined within the purview of a federal charter of rights, should one be enacted.  The Presbyterian Church of Queensland is profoundly concerned that a charter of rights will open up these issues to determination in a manner that is far from just or appropriate in the circumstances of our society.  Our submissions are made in order to draw attention to what we judge to be the most just and appropriate resolution of those issues, and we call on the National Human Rights Consultation and the Australian Government to ensure that no charter of rights which could possibly lead to outcomes contrary to these be enacted.  We leave it to the judgement of the National Human Rights Consultation and the Australian Government whether the drafting of such a charter of rights is possible, but we express serious doubts about whether this could possibly be the case and we will strongly oppose any proposed charter which we consider makes such deleterious outcomes possible, let alone probable.  

8.            Before turning to those issues, let us finally make clear that our expressions of concern are not based upon any naive sense of satisfaction with the status quo or the current condition of our democratic institutions of government.  Indeed, our society is currently plagued by widespread disillusionment and a sense of alienation among ordinary people from our institutions of government.  But in our judgement, a charter of rights, which would transfer fundamental decision-making powers away from the elected branches and towards an unelected, select group of highly privileged individuals will not serve to address these pressing problems of disillusionment and alienation; rather, it will only exacerbate them.  Our vision of a healthy, properly operating democracy is, on the contrary, one in which people generally feel able to participate meaningfully in their own self-government. 

9.            A charter of rights is generally embraced by those who believe that such a document will redress all the ills perceived to be suffered by minority groups, whether of race, creed or colour.  However, many such issues lie beyond the scope of a charter of rights unless the charter extends into the very doubtful field of economic and social rights. We respectfully submit that such issues are best addressed within a vibrant democracy in which citizens feel able to participate meaningfully in public deliberation about such issues, and in which the results of those deliberations are given effect in duly enacted legislation and government policy.  A single example of unfair treatment of certain classes of non-citizens illustrates the point, namely the different position of a person on a professional temporary work visa on one hand and a refugee or displaced person on the other.  Workers on a professional temporary work visa are not given a Medicare card even though they pay tax on their income and GST on all purchases; they can apply for a Medicare card on being accepted for permanent residency, a status for which they have to qualify by being in the country for 12 months and working the whole time.  By contrast, those entering the country as refugees or displaced persons are immediately given CentreLink benefits including a Health Care Card and a Medicare card.  Unfairness in treatment like this is unlikely to be effectively and efficiently addressed by a charter of rights, and is best addressed through public debate and legislative change. 

10.          In this context, we find highly remarkable the recent suggestion by the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission that the Commission, rather than the courts, be given a watching brief and be empowered to make reports to Parliament about cases where legislation could not be interpreted in a manner compatible with charter rights.  Granting this power to an even less democratic, less visible and less publicly accountable body as the Human Rights Commission would only make matters even worse. 

Issue 1: The conscience of the medical practitioner

11.          We draw attention to recent legislation in Victoria placing medical practitioners under a legal obligation to refer patients seeking abortions to suitably qualified medical practitioners able to provide what is euphemistically called abortion ‘services’.  We note that this enactment came into being under the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, and we express concern lest a national charter of rights fail in the same way to protect the capacity of medical practitioners to act on their consciences in declining to make such references. A national charter might also provide grounds upon which individuals may claim that they have a right to be referred to a medical practitioner willing to provide such services and that medical practitioners have a duty to do so.  We submit in the strongest possible terms that a medical practitioner should be free to act on his or her conscience without pressure or interference of any kind to refer patients to a practitioner willing to provide medical ‘services’ which the first mentioned practitioner regards as inherently immoral.

Issue 2: Abortion

12.          We note that the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities also contains an explicit provision which seeks to ensure that the charter will not be used in any way to resolve the issue of whether and in what circumstances abortions are legally permissible.  We wish to affirm in the most emphatic terms that we believe that in every relevant sense human life begins at conception and that it is the most grave of injustices to extinguish that life save in circumstances where that is an unavoidable and unintended secondary consequence of the application of procedures necessary to preserve a mother’s life or, in the case of multiple pregnancy, necessary to preserve the life of another child or children in utero.  We would resist in the strongest terms any provision in a federal charter of rights which made it possible to argue that any expressed right (such as a right to privacy) entailed a specific legal right to procure an abortion in circumstances other than those just mentioned.  We also express concern lest a federal charter of rights be enacted in which the lives of the unborn are hypocritically excluded from protection. 

Issue 3: Exemptions from antidiscrimination laws

13.          We are aware of enquiries currently being undertaken in Victoria which are revisiting the question of the existence and scope of current exemptions enjoyed by religious institutions and religiously motivated organisations from the general application of antidiscrimination laws.  As a denomination of Christians, The Presbyterian Church of Queensland strongly affirms the truth that all human beings are made in the image of God and that God is no respecter of persons, whether of race, professed religion, gender and so on, but that his mercy in Christ is offered to all, no matter who they are and no matter what they may have done.  At the same time, however, we affirm that moral discernment is intrinsic to the practice of living a just and upright life, and we note that all human beings who profess to act justly cannot avoid the responsibility of moral discernment.  In previous generations, the words discernment and discrimination were used interchangeably, but in latter times the word discrimination has been singled out to refer to what are deemed to be inappropriate and unjust forms of distinction-drawing between persons or particular behaviours.  We have no quibble with the mere fact that a gap has developed between the way in which the two words have come to be used.  We acknowledge that in many circumstances discrimination is unjust and inappropriate, but we also affirm (as with the vast bulk of people) that moral discernment is an unavoidable responsibility we have before God and each other.  

14.          We are conscious that the critical issue here lies in the boundaries between appropriate moral discernment and inappropriate prejudice and discrimination.  And we are conscious that, as a denomination of Christians, our judgements about those boundary lines differ from those of at least some others.  We note, in this context, that the boundary lines that have been drawn within the antidiscrimination laws of the Commonwealth and the States are the result of political decisions which reflect the views of elected representatives who do not necessarily share the views of our denomination.  Nonetheless, as taught by apostolic authority, we submit to the laws of our nation and recognise that those laws will not always draw the lines that we would consider most just and appropriate in the circumstances in which we find ourselves as a nation. 

15.          In this context, the Presbyterian Church of Queensland expresses profound concern lest the National Human Rights Consultation recommend a charter of rights or the adoption of policies which would alter the balance currently struck in Australia’s antidiscrimination laws, particularly in the form of the exemptions currently enjoyed by religious institutions and religiously motivated organisations under relevant federal and state enactments.  We submit in the strongest possible terms that the existing exemptions should continue to apply, and where necessary be extended so as to apply, to religious institutions and religiously motivated organisations, by which we mean to include primary and secondary schools, tertiary colleges and universities, welfare organisations and all manner of other associations which have been formed to perform (or which in the view of their members have become organisations which exist in order to perform) functions or provide a group environment which their members regard as legitimately religious in nature, ethos or purpose.  We are aware of those who would wish to curtail our freedoms in this respect and we call on the National Human Rights Consultation to uphold our freedoms in this regard. 

Issue 4: Religious vilification laws

16.          We also express extreme concern about the existence and scope of religious vilification laws in several of the Australian states.  In the first place, we do not believe that laws prohibiting certain types of speech are a prudent or appropriate way to try to prevent social disharmony, particularly in religious matters.  Religious beliefs and practices are subjects that need to be the subject of open communication.  In saying this, we do not of course approve of the use of language which incites violence, hatred or discrimination (in the sense described above).  But we observe that religious vilification laws, by the very nature of the kinds of communications to which they apply, are more likely to exacerbate than to minimise the existence of religious conflict.  The notorious Catch the Fire Ministries case in Victoria illustrates this very clearly. 

17.          We therefore submit that while there is a place for laws which make communications which incite violence or other illegal behaviour themselves unlawful, we strongly question those who would suggest that the ordinarily criminal laws relating to offences of conspiracy and incitement to engage in illegal behaviour are somehow insufficient for this purpose.  At the very most, if there are to be religious vilification laws, they ought to be limited to communications which have the intent of inciting violence or other illegal acts, and should have all of the careful qualifications and protections which ordinarily apply to the prosecution and conviction of persons accused of criminal offences. 

Issue 5: Evangelism and proselytisation

18.          We use the terms ‘evangelism’ and ‘proselytisation’ not because we intend to imply a distinction in meaning but because both terms are frequently used to refer to speech and other communicative acts which are motivated by the desire to inform people about or persuade people to adhere to particular religious beliefs, the performance of particular religious activities and the conduct of a certain way of life.  We strongly believe that people should be free, within the confines of the ordinary criminal and civil law, to hold religious beliefs and to act on those beliefs in various ways, including through evangelism and proselytisation.  However we express doubt about whether the enactment of a charter of rights containing an abstract right to religious freedom is the most appropriate way to ensure that this is the case, especially in the light of the need of a charter of rights to express in very abstract terms certain grounds upon which the expressed rights may be justifiably qualified or limited.  What we particularly wish to stress is our interest in religious freedom, including the freedom to engage in religious activities and the conduct of everyday life in terms of one’s religious beliefs and convictions.  We also wish to emphasise that this must extend to communication, again within the confines of the ordinary civil and criminal law, of one’s beliefs with others, with a view to providing information and persuading others to live and believe likewise.  Religious freedom must not be understood as a freedom to be immune from the lawful efforts of those who would seek to convert us to their belief system and religious way of life.  We have probably all experienced persons from some particular religious group knock on our doors offering information and wishing to engage in conversation about their religious beliefs.  We see no reason at all why this practice should be the subject of special legal regulation – apart, as we have said, from the application of the ordinary civil and criminal law. 

19.          In this context, we again express concern lest the enactment of an abstract charter of rights provide grounds upon which certain expressed rights (again, perhaps, the right to privacy, or indeed, a certain interpretation of the right to religious freedom) be interpreted to give individuals the legal right to be ‘free’ of the otherwise lawful evangelistic efforts of others.  We do affirm that those who evangelise or proselytise should indeed act in respectful and non-overbearing manner, but we do not think that such conduct should become the subject of special legal regulation, either through specific statutes, government policies or indirectly through a charter of rights. 

23.          Note the communication from the Acting Principal Clerk of the Church of Scotland and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.

24.          Note the communication from Mr Steven Ciobo MP, Federal Member for Moncrieff, and Jenny Macklin MP, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs concerning the eligibility criteria for the baby bonus and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.

 

25.          Note that the Hon Jenny Macklin MP, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in her letter of the 12th May 2009 states that

Baby Bonus claims are strictly administrated, and a medical practitioner or professional is required to verify the birth or stillbirth of a child for Baby Bonus claims.

26.          Note with sadness the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of the Church of Scotland to uphold the decision of the Aberdeen Presbytery to induct into a Charge a minister who has openly declared himself to be living in a homosexual relationship in its vote on the 23rd May 2009 of 326 to 267.

27.          Advise the Church of Scotland that by upholding the decision of the Aberdeen Presbytery to induct into a Charge a minister who has openly declared himself to be living in a homosexual relationship it has departed from the teaching of the Christian Scriptures, that recognises the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman as the only proper place for sexual intimacy.

28.          Call on the Church of Scotland Assembly to repent of this departure from the clear teaching of the Word of God, and assure the Church of Scotland that its best witness to the world of the grace of God in Jesus Christ will be found in its expression of such repentance.

29.          Advise the Church of Scotland that while it refuses to so repent, it inevitably demonstrates a deep breach of fellowship between itself and the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, and faithful Christians throughout the world.

30.          Forward copies to the Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, the Clerks of other State General Assemblies, and the Media.

31.          Thank Mr Neville Taylor for his commitment to the work of the Assembly through the Public Questions and Communications Committee.

Extracted from the records of the General Assembly by me- (Rev) R Clark- Clerk of Assembly

2008

2008 Public Questions and Communications Committee

102.     Deliverance as a whole

The deliverance as a whole was approved as follows: 

That the Assembly:

1. Thank the Rev. Rudi Schwartz for his service as Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee.
2. Thank Mrs Pam Riley for her work in collating the past resolutions of Assembly relating to the Public Questions and Communications Committee.
3. Commend Membership of the Public Questions and Communications Committee to Assembly Commissioners in nominating members to Assembly Committees.
4. Encourage Sessions to appoint a Community Interest Contact Person, (with email access) within the congregation to be a link with the Public Questions and Communications Committee and to promote activity within the community by the congregation.
5. Commend the Community Interest web page within the Presbyterian Church of Queensland to the Church.
6. Note that the Brisbane City Council continues to distribute the booklet Islam in Brisbane which includes inaccurate theological statements despite requests to edit the booklet or to remove it from circulation; and request Public Questions and Communications Committee to raise the matter once again with the Brisbane City Council and the Heads of Churches.
7. Note that the Brisbane City Council has an inflexible employment policy which requires staff to work on Sunday, even if it was possible for the staff member to exchange such rostered work with another employee, and that communicants be advised through Sessions and through New Directions of the Council’s policy.
8. Note BB 2007 Minute 99 5: That the Assembly:
   1. Commend DrugArm to the prayerful support of the Church.
   2. Appoint Rev. Rudi Schwartz, Mr N. Taylor and Mr D. Lewis to represent the Presbyterian Church of Queensland at the Annual General Meeting of DrugArm.
   3. Note that representatives of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland were unable to attend the 2006 Annual General Meeting of Drug Arm.
   4. Request the representatives of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, as an ordinary Member of the Drug Awareness and Relief Foundation (Australia), (Drug Arm), to take all appropriate action to change the policy of Drug Arm in relation to accepting support from funds generated by gambling, and to bring a report to the 2008 Assembly.
9. Note that the representatives of the Assembly to DrugArm reported to the Public Questions and Communications Committee that at the Annual General Meeting of DrugArm held at 7.30 am on 30^th October 2007, the motion: That the Board be requested to review policy in regard to accepting support from funds generated by gambling, in consultation with members.- was not approved by a vote of 8 to 6.
10. Note that the final section in the report relating to DrugArm “in that it was not approved, and that in consequence of the decision of DrugArm, the Assembly be recommended to withdraw its membership of DrugArm/” should be deleted from the report.
11. Appoint Mr D. Lewis and Rev. D. Niven to represent the Presbyterian Church of Queensland at the Annual General Meeting of DrugArm.
12. Request the representatives of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, as an ordinary member of the Drug Awareness and Relief Foundation (Australia) (Drug Arm), to take all appropriate action to change the policy of Drug Arm in relation to accepting support from funds generated by gambling and to bring a report to the 2009 Assembly.
13. Commend DrugArm to the prayerful support of the Church.
14. Note that following a conscience vote in both House of Representative and the Senate, legislation was passed allowing cloning of humans and the use of embryonic stem cells for the purpose of research and that the Queensland Parliament passed complementary legislation.
15. Note that developments in adult stem cell research have made the use of cloning and the use of embryonic stem cells redundant.
16. Note the Statement on Surrogacy issued by the Moderator and the Clerk, with the concurrence of the Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.

Re: Altruistic Surrogacy

While the Presbyterian Church of Queensland recognizes the pain of married couples who are childless and have tried for years to start a family, we are opposed to altruistic surrogacy.  Except in cases of artificial insemination by donor (AID), and intercourse by donor (adultery), the majority of surrogacy conception is achieved by en-vitro fertilization with the production and freezing and the disposal of unused ‘excess’ embryos.  The Presbyterian Church of Queensland declares that since personhood commences at conception, it is totally unacceptable to dispose of fertilized eggs by flushing them down the sink.  For this reason the Church is opposed to both altruistic and commercial surrogacy.

Since there are few children available for adoption, both in Australia and from overseas, the Church recognizes the frustration of couples who are seeking to adopt a child and the pressures they experience in trying to establish a family by IVF and surrogacy.  However while adoption is the placement of a baby who has been born to a mother who is willing to relinquish the child because she is unable to adequately care for it, this not the case with surrogacy. 

The aim of surrogacy is to conceive a child for the sole purpose of parting it from its birth mother, with the following issues;

• Problems with the bonding of the child with the birth mother then with the receiving mother.
• Unwillingness of the receiving parents to accept the child/ren if it/they is/are less than perfect, or of the ‘wrong’ sex, or a multiple birth when a single birth was expected.
• Unwillingness of the birth mother to give up the child because she has bonded with it.
• Questioning by the child later in life as to events surrounding its birth and the question of identity.

There is a need to enable childless couples to more readily adopt a child.  Perhaps the facilitating of adoption from overseas would be of assistance to couples who are considering surrogacy.

Yours sincerely                                                           

Rt Rev Kim Dale, Moderator                                             Rev Ron Clark, Clerk of Assembly

 17. Note the communication from the Moderator and the Clerk of Assembly to the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs Bonny Barry and Members of Parliament on the matter of decriminalisation of abortion.

18. Request Presbyteries and Sessions to be aware that there are ongoing moves to decriminalise abortion in Queensland and to establish a good working relationship with their local Member of the House of Representatives.

19. Note that the General Assembly of Australia at its meeting in September 2007 resolved to resign its membership of Christian Television Australia and that the Presbyterian Church of Queensland is no longer a member of CTA and has no direct involvement with CTA.

20. Instruct the Public Questions and Communications Committee to take up with the Finance and Administration Board the matter of the budget allocation to CTA with a view to deleting the subscription to CTA and making payments, for ‘Spots’ and Programmes aired in the Name of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, to Radio 96.5 in Brisbane, together with regional Christian radio stations in those areas which would be of most benefit to the Presbyterian Church of Queensland in the region, taking into consideration the benefit of giving such support biannually or in such a way as to maximise the value of the contribution.

21. Write to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with a copy to the media, expressing concern as to the state of affairs in Zimbabwe, and requesting the Australian Government take all appropriate action in addressing the situation in Zimbabwe so that the citizens may live in peace with freedom of worship and of association.

22. Communicate again with the Presbyterian Church of Zimbabwe assuring the Church of the prayerful support of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland.

2007

At Brisbane, and within Clayfield College, Brisbane, at 7.30 pm on the 27 June 2007 on which the General Assembly being duly constituted.

INTER ALIA:

MINUTE 99

The deliverance as a whole was approved as follows:
That the Assembly:
1. Commend Membership of the Public Questions and Communications Committee to Assembly Commissioners in nominating Members to Assembly Committees.
2. (a) Encourage Sessions to appoint a Community Interest Contact Person, (with e-mail access), within the Congregation to be a link with the Public Questions and Communications Committee and to promote activity within the Community.
 (b) Commend the Community Interest Web Page within the Presbyterian Church of Queensland to the Church.
3  (a)(i)(I)  Note: that on Friday 22nd June 2007, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal issued as a media release a joint statement of the Islamic Council of Victoria Inc., Catch the Fires Ministries Inc., Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot.  The statement gives details of the agreement that the Islamic Council of Victoria (the ICV) has reached with Catch the Fires Ministries, Pastor Daniel Scot and Pastor Daniel Nalliah about the complaint that the ICV brought to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) concerning what it alleges were acts of religious vilification in contravention of s8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic)
(II)  Note Assembly Paper 16, the VCAT Media Release.
(ii) Forward a letter of encouragement with a donation of $100.00 from the budget of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, to Pastors Daniel Scot of Ibrahim Ministries International and Daniel Nalliah of Catch the Fires Ministries, following the agreement that the Islamic Council of Victoria (the ICV) has reached with Catch the Fires Ministries, Pastor Daniel Scot and Pastor Daniel Nalliah about the complaint that the ICV brought to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) concerning what it alleges were acts of religious vilification in contravention of s8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic).
(b) Note that the Board of Finance has not as yet obtained legal opinion as to the implications of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 on the Church and its Office bearers.
4. Commend the Church and Nation Committee of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia for the material produced for the time of Prayer and Fasting leading up to Reformation Sunday, and endorse its decision to request the General Assembly to make this an annual activity in the life of the Church, with the co-operation of State Assemblies.
5. (a) Commend DrugArm to the prayerful support of the Church.
 (b) Appoint Rev Rudi Schwartz, Mr. N. Taylor and Mr D. Lewis to represent the Presbyterian Church of Queensland at the Annual General Meeting of DrugArm.
 (c) Note that representatives of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland were unable to attend the 2006 Annual General Meeting of Drug Arm.
 (d) Request the representatives of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, as an ordinary Member of the Drug Awareness and Relief Foundation (Australia), (Drug Arm), to take all appropriate action to change the policy of Drug Arm in relation to accepting support from funds generated by gambling, and to bring a report to the 2008 Assembly.
6. Request the Lord Mayor to withdraw the publication Islam in Brisbane from circulation as it contains inaccurate information relating to the relationship of Christianity and Islam, including the statement; ‘Muslims, Christians and Jews share a common heritage … and worship the same God’.
7. Request the Public Questions and Communication Committee, Presbyteries, Sessions and Communicants to make submissions if the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice is reviewed in the latter part of 2007.
8. (a) Commend Christian Television Australia (CTA) to the prayerful support of the Church.
 (b) Continue to support CTA financially, directly, even if the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia does not fund CTA through a national levy.
 (c) Request the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia to resolve the matter of outstanding subscriptions to Christian Television Australia (CTA).
9. Request Parents and other interested persons, who are concerned about matters of education in State Schools, to both pray that our children will be guarded and protected in the Education System; but to be aware that there are also practical things which can be carried out, as follows;
 Teachers and Principals are responsive to visits and input from parents who have a concern about their child’s education. So there is a need to be aware of the school environment and to take up matters with Teachers and the Principal.
 In a similar vein active membership of the Parents and Friends Association at the School is a direct pipeline to the Principal and to the Department of Education.
 Local politicians are most interested in what you think – and how you will vote at the next election in which they will be standing. So a visit to them to raise an issue can be very effective.
 There is even the pathway of joining a political party and becoming active in policy development and perhaps standing for office or election.
 Letters to the Editor and comments on talk back radio can raise an issue to public prominence and bring about positive change.
10. (a) Note that the Moderator, the Clerk and the Convener of the Public Questions Committee, issued a statement in the name of the Church, expressing opposition to Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell research and requested increased research into Adult Stem Cell research. (COA 15 November 2006, Minute 06/212).
 (b) Request the Clerk to forward a copy of the Statement on Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research, to the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and to the Media, with the request that they vote against Queensland Legislation which would complement Federal Legislation on Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell research.
 (c) Request Presbyteries, Sessions and Communicants to approach their local Member of the Legislative Assembly with the request that they vote against Queensland Legislation which would complement Federal Legislation on Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell research
11. Note that the Moderator, the Clerk and the Convener of the Public Questions Committee, issued a statement in the name of the Church, endorsing the stand of the Government introducing the amendment strengthening the Marriage Act 1961 to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life; and to confirm that unions solemnised overseas between same sex couples will not be recognised as marriages in Australia; and amendment of the Family Law Act 1975 to prevent inter-country adoptions by same sex couples under multilateral or bilateral agreements or arrangements.  Also expressing concern that the payment of the “Baby Bonus” in a lump sum may not be in the best interests of all families, and that there may be a possible greater benefit if it is paid in instalments. (COA 19 April 2007, Minute 06/398).
12. Note that the Moderator, the Clerk and the Convener of the Public Questions Committee, issued a statement in the name of the Church, expressing concern as to the state of affairs in Zimbabwe and requesting that the Australian Government take all appropriate action in addressing the situation in Zimbabwe, so that the citizens may live in peace, with freedom of worship and association (COA 16 May 2007, Minute 06/447).  (Appendix 4)
13. Request the Moderator and Clerk of Assembly to communicate with the Presbyterian Church in Zimbabwe offering moral support and asking if there is any way in which the Presbyterian Church of Queensland is able to be of assistance.
14.  Note that Radio 96.5 (and possibly other Christian radio stations) are very keen to receive press reports from the churches concerning “good news” stories to be featured in news bulletins and at other times through the day to strengthen the positive approach toward the Church from the general community (noting that the listenership of 96.5 is made up of 48% persons who have not attended a church within the last year) and encourage the Committee to formulate some strategy to enable our churches to maximise such benefits.
15.  In relation to any apparent possible restructuring of CTA, instruct the Committee to carefully monitor any such moves and to research whether it would not be a better use of finances to give support and encouragement to 96.5, together with all city and regional Christian radio stations, rather than commitment to TV which no longer has the advantage of legislation to ensure Christian content;  and encourage the Committee to have discussions with the Finance and Administration Board in relation to the financial aspects of such a matter.
16. Note Assembly Paper 17, the letter from the Lord Mayor of Brisbane to the Clerk of Assembly of 25 May 2007 re “the requirements that employees of Council, in particular a member of your Church employed in our libraries, work on Sundays”.
17. Advise the Lord Mayor of Brisbane that the Church has no problems with members of the Church being engaged in working in areas of necessity or mercy on Sundays, but has strong objection to members of the Church being compelled to work in areas of employment for only the convenience of the community on Sunday;  and that we are also concerned that employees who request not to be required for such Sunday work due to their Christian commitment, will become subject to disciplinary action, with the possibility of the termination of employment.
18.  Forward a copy of the Lord Mayor’s letter, together with a copy of the letter to the Lord Mayor, to the Heads of Churches, for its information and action as appropriate.

Extracted from the records of the General Assembly by me- (Rev) R Clark- Clerk of Assembly

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF ASSEMBLY

14 April 2007

CL 06  Statement on Marriage  (Refer Min. 99/11 above)

Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition

The Hon Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition

Marriage and Family

The Presbyterian Church of Queensland supported the amendment strengthening the Marriage Act 1961 to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life; and to confirm that unions solemnised overseas between same sex couples will not be recognised as marriages in Australia, and amendment of the Family Law Act 1975 to prevent intercountry adoptions by same sex couples under multilateral or bilateral agreements or arrangements.

The Church is also supportive of the Government’s moves to direct the Governor-General not to sign into law the ACT legislation establishing recognition of same sex unions, as well as moves to counter recognition of same sex unions in Tasmania; as both of these actions undermine the status of marriage.

We are encouraged by moves by the Government to support and strengthen family life.  However we are concerned that the payment of the "Baby Bonus" in a lump sum may not be in the best interests of all families, and that there may be a possible greater benefit if it is paid in instalments.  If the "Baby Bonus" encourages one woman to keep a pregnancy to term rather than have an abortion, then it is worthwhile.  The other concern in this area is that the short term financial benefits of having a baby, may encourage an increase in the number of unmarried mothers becoming pregnant.

Yours faithfully
 
Rt Rev Rudi Schwartz (Rev)

Ron Clark
Moderator Clerk of Assembly