Sunday fireside chat:
I was on a Stanthorpe Facebook group recently and there I found out that a prominent local Christian had set up a “peaceful” protest outside council chambers with signs naming the mayor and suggesting that she was somehow in need of redemption.
Further Facebook chat ensued and it became apparent that there was a recent request in council to change the prayer to the first order of business so that if councillors who didn’t want to participate in prayers and condolences could come in after prayers had concluded.
Apparently, a motion presented by one of the councillors opposing this change was voted up four to five.
Initially I was extremely interested though in how our council came to have prayer in the first place and I was informed that it was introduced during the Dobie regime.
My thought process was this. Condolences I could understand but prayer makes a mockery of the separation of powers and further marginalises other denominations or faiths whose prayers or customs are not being included.
Then I remembered that first people have taboos about mentioning deceased people’s names and condolences would be offensive in that context.
There was a lot of outrage on the Facebook post from people that felt that religion had no place in government but also some links to “controlled” Facebook pages praising the “protection of christian values”.
So intrigued, I had a look at what the rest of Australia was doing.
A paper by Luke Beck, a professor of constitutional law at Monash University, in the Journal for the Academic Study of Religion cited that one-third of Australian local governments have a prayer, with the figure rising to more than half of councils in New South Wales and Victoria.
Census figures, however, show that most Australians today are not Christian. About 44 per cent of Australians report being Christian, while 39 per cent report being not religious at all.
In January, a group of 21 councillors from various Victorian councils wrote an open letter to the state government and human rights commission asking that guidance be issued to councils about the appropriateness of council prayers.
They wrote that some councillors “object to being compelled […] to participate in a religious ritual as part of their role”, that others think it is unfair and inconsistent with multiculturalism to favour one religion over others, and that others think governmental bodies should be “neutral in matters of religion”.
But is it even legal?
England’s High Court ruled in 2012 that official prayers in English local councils were unlawful. The High Court pointed out that governmental bodies like councils can only do things the law says they can do.
The High Court found there was no law allowing English councils to have prayers, which meant that councils having prayers was unlawful. The British Parliament later passed a law to expressly allow councils to have prayers.
Last year, Luke Beck published in the Alternative Law Journal arguing that the logic of the English High Court decision applies in Australia too. There’s no law in any Australian jurisdiction allowing local councils to include religious prayers as part of the official business of council meetings. Indeed, Australian local government legislation emphasises the importance of equality and councils respecting the diversity of their populations.
Australian councils know there are legal risks in continuing to include religious prayers as part of their official meetings.
In Queensland, Fraser Coast Regional Council’s chief executive told that council in January 2023 he had received legal advice that their Christian prayer practice may be discriminatory under Queensland’s religious discrimination laws.
And just last month, Boroondara Council in suburban Melbourne halted its practice of praying during council meetings in response to a legal letter from Maurice Blackburn lawyers representing a non-religious councillor.
Maurice Blackburn’s Jennifer Kanis told The Age newspaper that having religious prayers as part of official council meetings was “beyond the powers given to council” as well as being in contravention of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
So it’s clear a council may well find itself in court over this issue. Luke Beck’s view is that instead of dealing with court cases, our elected representatives should simply choose to open their official council meetings with something more inclusive and representative of the whole community.
As a person with Christian values myself, my view was if the council was trying to stop this practice (which it wasn’t by the way) is would not be out of a sense of disrespecting faith, but rather representing all of it’s constituents equally.
I have certainty that all truly Christian people (and not those that just pay lip service to faith) would not want to see other people inadvertently hurt by such actions and I have every trust that the majority would support this move to excuse councillors from prayer.
What do you think? Are the councillors involved “protecting Christian values” or are they promoting Christian nationalism? Should we start council meetings with inclusive and representative statements or continue to marginalise other groups?
Coralie Endean, Dalcouth.
Blindsided again:
Having just read about the AEC Group report and its recommendations, I must emphatically remind all Southern Downs Regional Council members that the council’s funds belong to the ratepayers.
Despite any commercial-in-confidence agreements signed by previous councillors, such agreements should not be deemed legally binding.
The majority of ratepayers, myself included, are fed up with significant decisions being made without our consultation — the very people who pay your wages and the rates you spend so recklessly.
For a decision of this magnitude, ratepayers have the right to see and vote on the matter. Only a council operating underhandedly would keep a report of this significance a secret.
It is high time the Local Government Act, introduced by Peter Beattie to protect his cronies from being voted out of office, is drastically reformed. Ratepayers deserve a greater say in what happens in their area.
None of the recommendations should be instigated until all ratepayers have had a chance to read and comment on and then given a vote for the go ahead.
Peter Crawshay-Williams, Mount Colliery.
